US v. Joseph Samuel Hall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00034-FPS-MJA-1, 5:14-cv-00133-FPS-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992654]. Mailed to: Joseph Samuel Hall FCI GREENVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 5000 Greenville, IL 62246-0000. [16-7453]

Appeal: 16-7453

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH SAMUEL HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge.
(5:11-cr-00034-FPS-MJA-1; 5:14-cv00133-FPS-MJA)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Samuel Hall, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Perri, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7453

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Samuel Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

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

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

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
Hall has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-7453

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 12/22/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3