US v. Kelvin Van Hook, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00512-LMB-1, 1:14-cv-0425-LMB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999651614]. Mailed to: Kelvin Van Hook Jr. [15-6791]

Appeal: 15-6791

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6791

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KELVIN DWAIN VAN HOOK, JR., a/k/a Kelvin Dwain Vanhook, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00512-LMB-1; 1:14-cv-0425-LMB)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Dwain Van Hook, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Mary Katherine
Barr Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, Kara
Martin
Traster,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6791

Doc: 10

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Dwain Van Hook, Jr., 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
Van Hook 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: 15-6791

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 09/01/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3