Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel AREVALO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-02
Citations: 474 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 12-6498
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel AREVALO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel AREVALO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6498.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2012.
Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, Office Of The United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Arevalo-Hernandez 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 ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 prison er 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 Arevalo-Hernan-dez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.