US v. Donald Hanton, No. 09-8007 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DONALD HANTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00402-MBS-4; 5:08-CV-70003-MBS) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hanton, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donald Hanton seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Hanton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hanton's motion to appoint counsel, 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.