US v. Lorenzo Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999306793-2]. Originating case number: 1:02-cr-00293-JFM-1,1:13-cv-03208-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999337346]. Mailed to: Lorenzo Hall. [14-6083]

Appeal: 14-6083

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/16/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORENZO HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:02-cr—00293-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03208-JFM)

Submitted:

April 8, 2014

Decided:

April 16, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Charles Joseph Peters, Sr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6083

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/16/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo

Hall

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

court’s

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hall has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Hall’s

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-6083

Doc: 9

materials

before

Filed: 04/16/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3