Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08254/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Reginald Hines
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER REGINALD HINES,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00218-GCM-2; 3:07-cv-00361-GCM)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Reginald Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North

Carolina; Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8254 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Reginald Hines seeks to appeal the 

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

(West Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motions for 

reconsideration. The orders are 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). 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 Hines has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We also deny Hines’ request for bail. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 09-8254 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8254 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3