Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07041/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07041-1/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-7041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:04-cr-00060-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00287-RAJ)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: June 3, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David 

Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-7041 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny Hawkins’ motions for transcript and documents at Government 

expense, for copies of documents needed to complete appeal, and 

for injunctive relief pending appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 08-7041 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-7041 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3