Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norberto QUINONES, a/k/a Jose Rosado, a/k/a "J", Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-06
Citations: 667 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 16-6238
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norberto QUINONES, a/k/a Jose Rosado, a/k/a “J”, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 377–378

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norberto QUINONES, a/k/a Jose Rosado, a/k/a “J”, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6238
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2016
Decided: July 6, 2016
Norberto Quinones, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norberto Quinones seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Quinones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED