US v. Kendinya Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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