Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07734/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07734-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BRAD CHRISTOPHER HULL, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (6:06-cr-00013-NKM-1; 6:12-cv-80423-NKM-RSB) 

Submitted: April 22, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brad Christopher Hull, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7734 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Brad Christopher Hull seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and its order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 

Hull has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Hull’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 15-7734 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7734 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 3 of 3