Court Opinion

ID: 3212945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-14 21:01:01.367679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:33.552143
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7826

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOSE   SANTIAGO   HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ,   a/k/a   Jose   Santiago
Hernandez, a/k/a Santiago Hernandez, a/k/a Jose Santiago,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00016-CMH-1; 1:14-cv-01491-CMH)

Submitted:   May 31, 2016                 Decided:   June 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Santiago Hernandez-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Sun
Ahn, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Jason David
Jones, Charles Eric Douglas Mothander, Eugene Joseph Rossi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Jose Santiago Hernandez-Lopez 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    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    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.    Cockrell,         537 U.S. 322,      336-38

(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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Hernandez-Lopez           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

                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3