Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo HINSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 191 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 06-6599
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leo HINSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leo HINSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6599.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2006.
Decided: July 27, 2006.
Leo Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leo Hinson seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his action seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. Regarding Hinson's motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2), we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court. United States v. Hinson, No. 7:02-cr-00120-F (E.D.N.C. entered Nov. 3, 2005 & filed Nov. 9, 2005; Mar. 7, 2006).
Regarding Hinson's relief sought under § 2255, the orders are 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 dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hinson 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.