                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6509


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MARIO BENITEZ-PINEDA, a/k/a Cuzuco, a/k/a Chaparro,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00273-LO-1; 1:16-cv-00565-LO)


Submitted: October 9, 2018                                  Decided: November 26, 2018


Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mario Benitez-Pineda, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mario Benitez-Pineda seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as

untimely 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 also

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 Benitez-Pineda 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED




                                             2
