Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Miguel NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 580 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 14-6763
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Miguel NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Miguel NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6763.
United States Court of Appeals,' Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 29, 2014.
Fernando Miguel Nunez, Appellant pro se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fernando Miguel Nunez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Nunez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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.