Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0165-01.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

Willie Junior HINES, a/k/a Willie Hines, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard E. BAZZLE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 06-7292.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 8, 2006.
    
      Willie Junior Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Willie Junior Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to treat Hines’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive and dismiss the petition without prejudice on that basis. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Hines 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       In June 2006, prior to Hines’ timely appeal in this case, Hines filed a motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). Hines raised the same issues presented in his second § 2254 petition. This Court denied authorization. See In re Hines, No. 06-461 (4th Cir. July 11, 2006) (unpublished order).