Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06071/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06071-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CREADELL HUBBARD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00322-BR-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Creadell Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. James J. Kurosad, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6071 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Creadell Hubbard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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. 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 

Creadell Hubbard 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 

Appeal: 15-6071 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6071 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3