United States v. Jason Hines
United States v. Jason Hines
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6523
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON W. HINES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00378-RDB-1; 1:18-cv-02810-RDB)
Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: October 21 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason W. Hines, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jason W. Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,
137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.
Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hines has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Hines’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished