Court Opinion

ID: 1025539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:51:34.064209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:00.860116
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARC PIERRE HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1; 3:07-cv-00438-FDW)

Submitted:   April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Marc Pierre Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007)

motion    as    a   successive   28    U.S.C.   §   2255   (2000)   motion,   and

dismissing it on that basis.           The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369

(4th Cir. 2004).        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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.              Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall 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

                                       - 2 -