Chauncey Hill v. Gregg Hershberger, No. 13-7133 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7133 CHAUNCEY ANTONIO HILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GREGG L. HERSHBERGER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02386-PJM) Submitted: November 26, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chauncey Antonio Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chauncey court s order petition. Antonio denying Hill relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. district § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue the absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. deny Hill s motions dismiss the appeal. facts and legal for a certificate of Accordingly, we appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3