Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MENDEZ-VALDEZ, a/k/a Diego, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 529 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 13-6646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MENDEZ-VALDEZ, a/k/a Diego, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo MENDEZ-VALDEZ, a/k/a Diego, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6646.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 18, 2013.
Ricardo Mendez-Valdez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Mendez-Valdez seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Mendez-Valdez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala- bility 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.