Filed: Sep. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY RICHARD HINDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-391-AW; CA-03-1620-AW) Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY RICHARD HINDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-391-AW; CA-03-1620-AW) Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY RICHARD HINDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-391-AW; CA-03-1620-AW)
Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Richard Hinds, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Richard Hinds seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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). Even if we were to find debatable or
wrong the district court’s procedural determination that Hinds’s
§ 2255 motion was successive, see In re Goodard,
170 F.3d 435, 437-
38 (4th Cir. 1999), our independent review of the record discloses
that Hinds’s constitutional claims are not debatable. Accordingly,
we deny Hinds’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
- 2 -