United States of America v. Noe Jeremias Hernandez Morales, a/k/a Noe Jeremias Hernandez- Morales, a/k/a Noe…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOE JEREMIAS HERNANDEZ MORALES, a/k/a Noe Jeremias Hernandez-
Morales, a/k/a Noe Hernandez Morales,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00032-EKD-1; 5:23-cv-
81529-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: June 17, 2024
Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noe Jeremias Hernandez Morales, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Noe Jeremias Hernandez Morales seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
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). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck
v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morales 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 of 2 --