Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Patricia Tillery Hill, who sought to appeal the district court's denial of her motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court issues a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hill did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7450

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Patricia Tillery Hill, who sought to appeal the district court's denial of her motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court issues a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hill did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Patricia Tillery Hill, who sought to appeal the district court's denial of her motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court issues a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hill did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7450

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    PATRICIA TILLERY HILL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-01-253-BO; CA-04-140-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    January 28, 2005

    Decided:

    February 18, 2005

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Patricia Tillery Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Banumathi Rangarajan,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Patricia

    Tillery

    Hill

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.


    2255 (2000).

    The order is 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


    her 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 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Hill 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