David Hill v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999150476-2] Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00520-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999246466]. Mailed to: David Hill. [13-7108]

Appeal: 13-7108

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7108

DAVID ROGERS HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00520-NKM-RSB)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Rogers Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7108

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Rogers Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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 petition 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 13-7108

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3