United States v. Henderson Hinton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENDERSON L. HINTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W.
Boyle, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00015-BO-1; 2:11-cv-00016-BO)
Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henderson Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to
amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. Because Hinton’s
motions did not directly attack his conviction or sentence, but
rather sought to correct an alleged defect in the collateral
review process itself, they constituted true Rule 15(c) and Rule
60(b)(6) motions under United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
207 (4th Cir. 2003). To appeal the orders, however, Hinton must
establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004).
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). 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hinton 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3