Court Opinion

ID: 1017811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:10:34.524418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:46.048515
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7179

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

FELIPE AURELIO HERNANDEZ,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-02-30046; CA-05-237)

Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 29, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felipe Aurelio Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick
Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Felipe Aurelio Hernandez seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).       The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.         28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).    A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.            See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We   have   independently   reviewed   the   record   and   conclude   that

Hernandez 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

                                 - 2 -