Court Opinion

ID: 4293689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-12 19:00:19.973679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:56.856825
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 18-6089

FREDDIE LEE HALL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DAVID ZOOK, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00602-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: June 28, 2018                                          Decided: July 12, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie Lee Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Freddie Lee Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

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) (2012). 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 petition 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 Hall has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Hall’s motion for leave to amend

and supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny Hall’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2