Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07452/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07452-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendinya Dewalterell Hall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7452

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a 

KenBob,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00352-RBS)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Nicholas John Xenakis, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kendinya Dewalterell Hall seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

untimely filed. 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 

Hall 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

Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7452 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 3 of 3