United States v. Hazel

102 F. App'x 355
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Hazel. Read the opinion of the Court — 102 F. App'x 357
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 14, 2004·No. 04-6540·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6540

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY HAZEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-93-62-A; CA-03-211-AM)

Submitted: May 21, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen E. Campbell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders

are not appealable 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 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, 336 (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 Hazel has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny the motion to amend the certificate of

appealability. 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 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Hazel, 102 F. App'x 355 (4th Cir. 2004).

102 F. App'x 355 (United States v. Hazel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)