United States v. Kelvin Van Hook, Jr. , 613 F. App'x 255 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6791
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KELVIN DWAIN VAN HOOK, JR., a/k/a Kelvin Dwain Vanhook, Jr.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.       Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:11-cr-00512-LMB-1; 1:14-cv-0425-LMB)
    Submitted:   August 27, 2015                 Decided:   September 1, 2015
    Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kelvin Dwain Van Hook, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Mary Katherine
    Barr Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, Kara
    Martin   Traster,  OFFICE   OF   THE UNITED  STATES  ATTORNEY,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kelvin Dwain Van Hook, Jr., 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
    Van Hook 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6791

Citation Numbers: 613 F. App'x 255

Filed Date: 9/1/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023