Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James David HINKLE, 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 371
Docket Number: No. 05-7672
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James David HINKLE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James David HINKLE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7672.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2006.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
James David Hinkle, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James David Hinkle seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is 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 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, 336-38, 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 Hinkle 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