Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Dave HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 05-7047
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Dave HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Dave HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Mark Dave Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mark Dave Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 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 (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