Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl Kevin HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-30
Citations: 393 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 10-6500
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl Kevin HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Karl Kevin HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6500.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 19, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2010.
Karl Kevin Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karl Kevin Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hill's motion for a transcript. 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.