US v. Christopher Haye

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998771743-2]. Originating case numbers: 3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7, 3:11-cv-70055-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998869251]. Mailed to: Christopher Hayes. [12-6125]

Appeal: 12-6125

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TOBY HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7; 3:11-cv-70055-CMC)

Submitted:

May 31, 2012

Decided:

June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6125

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Toby Hayes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) motion and has made a motion for a certificate of
appealability.
unless

a

The district court’s order is not appealable

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hayes has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6125

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/06/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3