UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TILDEN VARDEN HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-6122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TILDEN VARDEN HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00011-JLK-RSB-1; 4:11-cv-80385-JLK-
RSB)
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 30, 2012
Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge
No. 12-6121, affirmed; No. 12-6122, dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Tilden Varden Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Case No. 12-6121, Tilden Varden Hall appeals the
district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Hall, No. 4:09-cr-00011-JLK-
RSB-1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2012).
In Case No. 12-6122, Hall seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his conditionally
filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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.
3
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Hall 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.
No. 12-6121, AFFIRMED
No. 12-6122, DISMISSED
4