United States v. Phillip Hamilton , 589 F. App'x 96 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP A. HAMILTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-7310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP A. HAMILTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00013-HEH-1; 3:14-cv-00254-HEH)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Phillip A. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, David Vincent Harbach, II,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia;
Benjamin L. Hatch, Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 14-7282, Phillip A. Hamilton, a federal
prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial. In
No. 14-7310, Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We affirm
in part and dismiss in part.
With regard to Hamilton’s appeal of the district
court’s denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.
Hamilton, No. 3:11-cr-00013-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2014).
Turning to the denial of § 2255 relief, 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).
3
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 Hamilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion
of 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4