US v. Hinson, No. 06-6599 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6599 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEO HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00120-F) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leo Hinson seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing his action seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. Regarding Hinson s motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2), we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court. United States v. Hinson, No. 7:02-cr-00120-F (E.D.N.C. entered Nov. 3, 2005 & filed Nov. 9, 2005; Mar. 7, 2006). Regarding Hinson s relief sought under § 2255, the orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hinson 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 - 2 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART - 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.
