Court Opinion

ID: 4276667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-18 19:00:26.314777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:58.089411
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DENNIS L. GIL BERNARDEZ, a/k/a Negro, a/k/a Big Homie, a/k/a Dopre, a/k/a
Pando,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00216-LO-1; 1:16-cv-01289)

Submitted: May 17, 2018                                           Decided: May 18, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Louis Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dennis L. Gil Bernardez 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 Bernardez has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bernardez’s motion for appointment

of counsel, 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

                                             2