Court Opinion

ID: 1017934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:12:28.520581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:44.108321
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MARK DAVE HILL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-00-398; CA-04-22053-2-PMD)

Submitted:   November 30, 2005         Decided:     December 15, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Dave Hill, Appellant Pro Se.    Rose Mary Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability.    28 U.S.C. § 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 (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 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

                                 - 2 -