United States v. Hinton , 53 F. App'x 283 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANK LATHAN HINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-94-106)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Lathan Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frank Lathan Hinton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a
§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both
“(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 318(2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that Hinton has not made the requisite
showing. See United States v. Hinton, No. CR-94-106 (E.D. Va.
filed July 30, 2002; entered July 31, 2002). 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