US v. James T. Hancock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00206-JAB-2,1:11-cv-00551-JAB-PTS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999481828]. Mailed to: James Hancock. [14-6899, 14-6902]

Appeal: 14-6899

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-6902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00206-JAB-2; 1:11-cv-00551-JABPTS; 1:07-cr-00071-JAB-1; 1:11-cv-00774-JAB-JLW)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 14-6899

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Thomas Hancock, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-6899

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/25/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
James
court’s

order

Thomas

Hancock

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 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 Hancock has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

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

dispense

with

oral

argument

3

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6899

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 11/25/2014

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4