United States v. Hollomon

340 F. App'x 842

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM T. HOLLOMON, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00269-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00146-HEH)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Hollomon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

William T. Hollomon, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 Hollomon has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hollomon’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