US v. Kenneth Hunter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998615071-2] Originating case number: 2:05-cr-00049-JPB-JES-1,2:10-cv-00002-JPB-JES. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998661422]. Mailed to: Kenneth Hunter. [11-6645]

Appeal: 11-6645

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6645

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENNETH RAY HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge.
(2:05-cr-00049-JPB-JES-1; 2:10-cv-00002JPB-JES)

Submitted:

August 18, 2011

Decided:

August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner,
Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6645

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth
court’s

order

Ray

Hunter

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district
magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

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.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Hunter has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,

we

deny

Hunter’s

motion

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

for

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 11-6645

Document: 11

Date Filed: 08/23/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3