US v. Phillip Hamilton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion to proceed under CJA [999436089-2] in 14-7282 Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00013-HEH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999499283]. Mailed to: P. Hamilton. [14-7282, 14-7310]

Appeal: 14-7282

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7282

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP A. HAMILTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-7310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP A. HAMILTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00013-HEH-1; 3:14-cv-00254-HEH)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

December 23, 2014

Appeal: 14-7282

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Phillip A. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.
Gurney Wingate Grant,
II, Assistant United States Attorney, David Vincent Harbach, II,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia;
Benjamin L. Hatch, Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7282

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In

No.

14-7282,

Phillip

A.

Hamilton,

a

federal

prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial.

In

No. 14-7310, Hamilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

We affirm

in part and dismiss in part.
With

regard

to

Hamilton’s

appeal

of

the

district

court’s denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly,

while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court.

See United States v.

Hamilton, No. 3:11-cr-00013-HEH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2014).
Turning to the denial of § 2255 relief, the order is
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

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
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
3

Appeal: 14-7282

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/23/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

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 Hamilton has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion
of the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4