US v. Christopher Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00559-AW-8,8:09-cv-00713-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998527876] [10-7318]

Case: 10-7318

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER A. HALL, a/k/a “C”,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:04-cr-00559-AW-8; 8:09-cv-00713-AW)

Submitted:

February 10, 2011

Decided:

February 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Robert
K. Hur, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland;
Patrick M. Pericak, Del Wright, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Sandra Wilkinson,, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7318

Document: 9

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

Page: 2

seeks

the

PER CURIAM:
Christopher

A.

Hall

to

appeal

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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
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

2

Case: 10-7318

before

the

court

Document: 9

and

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

argument

would

not

aid

Page: 3

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3