US v. Robert Hill, No. 08-7300 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7300 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT HILL, a/k/a Benny, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00059-REP-1; 3:07-cv-00285-REP) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Hill seeks to appeal the district court s order 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. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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. record and conclude showing. 2001). We that have Hill independently has not made reviewed the the requisite 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.