Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Lehenri HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-25
Citations: 131 F. App'x 961
Docket Number: No. 05-6055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel Lehenri HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 961–962

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Samuel Lehenri HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6055.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 25, 2005.
Samuel Lehenri Hill, Appellant pro se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Lehenri Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill 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.
DISMISSED