US v. Gary Hall, No. 10-6276 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GARY HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00252-JFM-1) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Hall, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Appellee. Purcell, Jr., Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Hall seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless a circuit appealability. 369 F.3d justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
