From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Warden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 25, 2013
546 F. App'x 327 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-7108

11-25-2013

DAVID ROGERS HILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee.

David Rogers Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00520-NKM-RSB) Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Rogers Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

David Rogers Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 petition 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Hill v. Warden

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 25, 2013
546 F. App'x 327 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Hill v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ROGERS HILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 25, 2013

Citations

546 F. App'x 327 (4th Cir. 2013)