United States of America v. Daniel Hill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6968
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:96-cr-
00399-AMD; 1:03-cv-00021-AMD)
Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Warren Bennett, BENNETT & BAIR, L.L.P., Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellant. Martin Joseph Clarke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. Neither
order is appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid
v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims
by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise
debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Hill’s motion for 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 of 2 --