United States v. Hill , 100 F. App'x 920 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6311
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WARREN DEVON HILL, a/k/a Red Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CR-96-458; CA-03-251-1-WMN)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren Devon Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Warren Devon Hill appeals from the denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. 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 jurists of reason
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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has
not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -