Johnny Hall v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 4th Cir

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6822
JOHNNY HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ARTHUR F. BEELER,
Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-129)
Submitted: October 24, 2003 Decided: November 12, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* The district court construed the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and
dismissed it as a successive motion lacking the authorization
required by § 2255.
Having construed Hall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as
a motion for authorization, see United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W.
(U.S. Sept. 22, 2003) (No. 03-6548), we conclude that, under the
2
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his habeas corpus petition, construed by the district
court as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a proceeding under
§ 2255 unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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).
An appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists 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,
, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (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 Hall has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hall’s motion
for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We

-- 2 of 3 --

strictures of that statute, Hall is not entitled to such
authorization.
3
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

-- 3 of 3 --