United States v. Hall ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7719
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID TYRONE HALL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
    98-192-CCB; CA-03-2911-CCB)
    Submitted: March 23, 2006                      Decided: March 29, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Tyrone Hall, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    David Tyrone Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues   a   certificate    of     appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).        A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
    district court are also debatable or wrong.              See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall
    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: 05-7719

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 3/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024