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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Kendinya Hall. [16-7452]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a
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)
February 23, 2017
February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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-
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.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
Pg: 3 of 3
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?