Court Opinion

ID: 174875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-07 17:50:13+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:59.143408
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 10-6876

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER LAMONT HILL,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00059-RLW-2; 3:07-cv-00405-RLW)

Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lamont Hill, Appellant Pro Se.       Sara Elizabeth
Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher Lamont Hill seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2010)    motion.      The    order      is    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).               When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard    by    demonstrating         that   reasonable       jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.               Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);    see    Miller-El    v.    Cockrell,        537    U.S.   322,   336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.          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

                                            2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3