Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06098/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Devon Hall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY DEVON HALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00369-TDS-1; 1:13-cv-00462-WO-JEP)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016

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

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Devon Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Randall 

Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6098 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Devon Hall 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 (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 

Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 16-6098 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6098 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3