US v. Christopher Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00059-RLW-2,3:07-cv-00405-RLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998419392] [10-6876]

US v. Christopher Hill

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6876 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6876 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LAMONT HILL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00059-RLW-2; 3:07-cv-00405-RLW) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lamont Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6876 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Christopher Lamont Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Hill 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

2

Case: 10-6876 Document: 5

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3