US v. Henderson Hinton, No. 13-6588 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6588 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENDERSON L. HINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:06-cr-00015-BO-1; 2:11-cv-00016-BO) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson L. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henderson Hinton seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. motion, and Because Hinton s motions did not directly attack his conviction or sentence, but rather sought to correct an alleged defect in the collateral review process itself, they constituted true Rule 15(c) and Rule 60(b)(6) motions under United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). To appeal the orders, however, Hinton must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004). 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). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 2 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 Hinton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this 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.
