UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8254
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER REGINALD HINES,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00218-GCM-2; 3:07-cv-00361-GCM)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Reginald Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina; Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Reginald Hines seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motions for
reconsideration. The orders are 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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. 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 also deny Hines’ request for bail. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3