UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6550
JOHN HILL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-6553
JOHN HILL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:05-cv-00015-AWA-TEM; 2:05-cv-00086-AWA-TEM)
Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Hill, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Uberman, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his motions to set aside judgments in two 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceedings. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4