Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06762/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06762-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD MCKAY HALE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief

District Judge. (2:00-cr-00222-5; 2:03-cv-02269)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald McKay Hale, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Monica Lynn Dillon,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6762 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald McKay Hale, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 (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 Hale 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

Appeal: 07-6762 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 2 of 2