Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Richard HINDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 109 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 04-6243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Richard HINDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Richard HINDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6243.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 23, 2004.
Anthony Richard Hinds, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Richard Hinds seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 demon strating 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). Even if we were to find debatable or wrong the district court's procedural determination that Hinds's § 2255 motion was successive, see In re Goddard, 170 F.3d 435, 437-38 (4th Cir.1999), our independent review of the record discloses that Hinds's constitutional claims are not debatable. Accordingly, we deny Hinds's motion for 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