United States v. Hunter ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8019
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT DEON HUNTER, SR., a/k/a Bob Hunter,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (1:06-cr-00251-MR-4; 1:09-cv-00297-LHT)
    Submitted:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 23, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert Deon Hunter, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s      order   denying        relief       on   his     28    U.S.C.A.       §     2255
    (West Supp. 2009) motion.             The order is not appealable unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                   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)        (2006).        A
    prisoner      satisfies       this        standard       by     demonstrating           that
    reasonable     jurists      would     find       that    any       assessment      of     the
    constitutional       claims    by    the     district       court    is   debatable        or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunter 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 098019

Filed Date: 3/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021