Court Opinion

ID: 4316181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-27 19:00:21.556079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:07:53.147839
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ROBERT PATRICK HOFFMAN, II,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00184-RGD-LRL-1; 2:16-
cv-00398-RGD)

Submitted: September 19, 2018                               Decided: September 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Patrick Hoffman, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Patrick Hoffman, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Hoffman 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2