Case ID: f-appx_164/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennard HUTCHINSON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-7214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
    Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
    Dennard Hutchinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Dennard Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hutchinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hutchinson’s pro se “Motion to Quash Indictment.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED