Court Opinion

ID: 1014145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:11:56.001574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:35.912941
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARQUETTE HALL,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
97-365-CCB; CA-03-1465-CCB)

Submitted:   July 30, 2004                 Decided:   August 17, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquette Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Marquette Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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 -