
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel R. HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-1532.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 22, 2011.
    
      Michael Conrad Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Miguel R. Hernandez, Pekin, IL, pro se.
    Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING APPEAL

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

Miguel R. Hernandez, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA). He wants to appeal from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence. Incredibly, he makes no argument in support of his request. Because he has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), his request must be denied.

Hernandez pled guilty to federal drug and firearms charges on December 29, 2008. On April 2, 2009, judgment entered; he was sentenced to 188 months imprisonment. He did not appeal.

On April 6, 2010, Hernandez filed a § 2255 motion arguing: 1) the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines in finding him subject to a sentencing enhancement; and 2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.' The district court denied relief, rendering a cogent and comprehensive opinion and order, which also, sua sponte, considered the propriety of a COA and pre-emptively denied one.

Here, Hernandez submitted an opening brief and application COA on a form supplied by this court. His application does not present the issues he wishes to pursue on appeal. It contains no arguments. In fact, it contains nothing more than repeated references to the attachment — a copy of the motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence he filed in the district court. His summary application will be met with equal brevity.

Hernandez’s request for a COA is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED. 
      
      . ’ We liberally construe Hernandez’s pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).
     