Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-22
Citations: 589 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 14-7027
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit . Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 71–71

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2014.
Oscar Hernandez, Appellant pro se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit . Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. 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 Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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.
Although the district court failed to give Hernandez notice under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), our certificate of appealability assessment convinces us that this omission was harmless.