Court Opinion

ID: 1027619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:26:52.00061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:42.284341
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6907

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DONATHAN WAYNE HADDEN,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (4:98-cr-00156-CMC; 4:08-cv-70010-CMC)

Submitted:    January 13, 2009               Decided:   January 15, 2009

Before WILLIAMS,     Chief   Judge,   and   TRAXLER   and   KING,   Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donathan Wayne Hadden, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Donathan     Wayne       Hadden      seeks    to    appeal      the     district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006)

motion    and    denying       his    subsequent       motion      to    alter       or     amend

judgment.        The     orders       are    not    appealable         unless    a     circuit

justice    or    judge    issues       a    certificate      of    appealability.                28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                 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)         (2006).           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 Hadden 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