US v. Kendinya Hall


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1, 2:16-cv-00352-RBS. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000032023]. Mailed to: Kendinya Hall. [16-7452]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7452 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a KenBob, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00352-RBS) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Nicholas John Xenakis, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Kendinya Dewalterell Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 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 (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 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 adequately Filed: 02/28/2017 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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?