Court Opinion

ID: 8600088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:22:58.415591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.835211
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Mark Dave Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. *437§ 2253(c)(1). 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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