Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Meichor VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 425 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 11-6038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Meichor VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Meichor VARGAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2011.
Decided: April 27, 2011.
Manuel Meichor Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Meichor Vargas seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (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 Vagras 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED