United States v. Kendinya Hall , 678 F. App'x 131 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7452
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a
KenBob,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00352-RBS)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Nicholas John Xenakis,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kendinya Dewalterell Hall seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
untimely filed. 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
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
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3