US v. James Hackley, IV

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00018-GEC-1,5:13-cv-80649-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658152]. Mailed to: James Hackley. [15-6634]

Appeal: 15-6634

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES RICHARD HACKLEY, IV, a/k/a J.R., a/k/a Baby J,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00018-GEC-1; 5:13-cv-80649-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Richard Hackley, IV, Appellant Pro Se.
Huber,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Virginia.

Ronald Mitchell
Charlottesville,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6634

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Richard Hackley, IV, seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

denying

a

relief

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

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
Hackley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6634

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 09/11/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3