Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr. v. NFN Bush, Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-02960-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999961424]. Mailed to: Hinojos. [15-6867]

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6867

MARIO RAMOS HINOJOS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BUSH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:14-cv-02960-DCN)

Submitted:

October 21, 2016

Decided:

November 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John
Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mario
court’s

Ramos

order

Hinojos,

accepting

Jr.,

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the

the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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
Hinojos has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6867

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 11/03/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3