Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James David Hinkle sought to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, as Hinkle did not obtain a certificate of appealability which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinkle did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate. Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7672

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James David Hinkle sought to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, as Hinkle did not obtain a certificate of appealability which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinkle did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate. Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which James David Hinkle sought to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, as Hinkle did not obtain a certificate of appealability which requires demonstrating the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinkle did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate. Therefore, the court denied the certificate and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7672

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES DAVID HINKLE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-03-30080; CA-05-236)

    Submitted: January 19, 2006

    Decided:

    January 26, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James David Hinkle, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James David Hinkle seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    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, 336-38 (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 Hinkle has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like