US v. David Hagen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999503283-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999489628-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999489611-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00093-WEB-DCK-2,3:13-cv-00394-WEB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999635461]. Mailed to: David Hagen. [14-7641]

Appeal: 14-7641

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7641

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. HAGEN, a/k/a Antonio Diez, a/k/a David DeFusco,
a/k/a David DuFusco,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00093-WEB-DCK-2; 3:13-cv-00394-WEB)

Submitted:

July 16, 2015

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 6, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carole Melissa Owen, Noell Peter Tin, TIN, FULTON, WALKER &
OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7641

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David A. Hagen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on Hagen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment.

The

justice

judge

or

orders

are

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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
Hagen has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Hagen’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
deny

as

unnecessary

Hagen’s

motion
2

for

Finally, we

consideration

of

the

Appeal: 14-7641

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/06/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

trial transcript filed in his criminal appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3