Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 164 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 05-6813
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6813.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 30, 2005.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Hill, a federal prisoner, seeks to-appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Hill's motion to supplement his pleadings, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Hill also petitions this court for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for a new trial. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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