US v. Brad Hull
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999719661-2] Originating case number: 6:06-cr-00013-NKM-1,6:12-cv-80423-NKM-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999819486]. Mailed to: Brad Hull. [15-7734]
Appeal: 15-7734
Doc: 10
Filed: 05/11/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRAD CHRISTOPHER HULL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cr-00013-NKM-1; 6:12-cv-80423-NKM-RSB)
Submitted:
April 22, 2016
Decided:
May 11, 2016
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brad Christopher Hull, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7734
Doc: 10
Filed: 05/11/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Brad Christopher Hull seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and its order
adopting
the
magistrate
judge’s
recommendation
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
and
denying
The orders are
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
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
Hull has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Hull’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
Appeal: 15-7734
legal
before
Doc: 10
contentions
this
court
Filed: 05/11/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?