Court Opinion

ID: 1025665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:53:34.450284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:10.315152
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 07-7660

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOSHUA HALL,

                Defendant - Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT MICHAEL WOOLF,

                Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00056-LMB; 1:07-cv-00766-LMB)

Submitted:   April 30, 2008                    Decided:   May 9, 2008

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. David Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

           Joshua Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.              The order is

not   appealable    unless   a    circuit    justice   or    judge   issues     a

certificate of appealability.          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).           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 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

                                    - 3 -