US v. David Hatfield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:02-cr-00219-1,5:10-cv-00128 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156663]. Mailed to: David Hatfield. [13-6451]

Appeal: 13-6451

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID LYNN HATFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (5:02-cr-00219-1; 5:10-cv-00128)

Submitted:

July 15, 2013

Decided:

July 23, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lynn Hatfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Joshua Clarke Hanks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6451

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Lynn

Hatfield

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2013)

motion. 1

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

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

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

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

1

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

Hatfield
also
challenges
the
district
court’s
re-characterization of his filing as one arising under § 2255.
Hatfield, however, failed to object to the district court’s
re-characterization despite receiving notice of the court’s
intent to do so. Accordingly, we decline to consider this claim
on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).

2

Appeal: 13-6451

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hatfield has not made the requisite showing. 2

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

The magistrate judge issued a report addressing the merits
of Hatfield’s claims and recommending the denial of the § 2255
motion.
The district court denied Hatfield’s motion as moot
because Hatfield had been released from custody and completed
his term of supervised release before the district court reached
a decision on the motion.
Because Hatfield was in custody at
the time he filed his motion, it should not have been dismissed
as moot.
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968).
However,
after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that although
the district court’s procedural disposition was erroneous,
Hatfield’s motion, considered on its merits, fails to state a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

3