US v. Jose Ramos-Hernandez, No. 13-6331 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE MARCIAL RAMOS-HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00549-JCC-1; 1:12-cv-00788-JCC) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Marcial Ramos-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Keim, Kyle William Maurer, Lisa Owings, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Marcial Ramos-Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Ramos-Hernandez Accordingly, we deny has not his made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the requisite for a showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
