United States v. Hairston

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-WCB; 3:06-cv-123) Submitted: May 10, 2007 Decided: May 14, 2007 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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 Hairston 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 -