UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00060-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00287-RAJ)
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: June 3, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David
Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Hawkins has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also
deny Hawkins’ motions for transcript and documents at Government
expense, for copies of documents needed to complete appeal, and
for injunctive relief pending appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3