United States of America v. Dennis L. Gil Bernardez, a/k/a Negro, a/k/a Big Homie, a/k/a Dopre, a/k/a Pando

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7385
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS L. GIL BERNARDEZ, a/k/a Negro, a/k/a Big Homie, a/k/a Dopre, a/k/a
Pando,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00216-LO-1; 1:16-cv-01289)
Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 18, 2018
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Louis Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis L. Gil Bernardez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
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 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 Bernardez has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bernardez’s motion for appointment
of counsel, 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 --