Court Opinion

ID: 1028275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:37:52.981164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:28.212964
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 08-8367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

ANTONIO NICHOLAS HILL,

                  Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(8:05-cr-01276-HFF-1; 8:08-cv-70080-HFF)

Submitted:    March 12, 2009                   Decided:    March 17, 2009

Before MOTZ and      SHEDD,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Nicholas Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Antonio    Nicholas      Hill      seeks    to    appeal   the   district

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

Supp.   2008)    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).        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 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

                                          2