US v. Delfon Hare, No. 13-7641 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DELFON LEBREW HARE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:07-cr-00189-RWT-1; 8:10-cv-01757-RWT) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delfon Lebrew Hare, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Delfon Lebrew appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. his district motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court s judge denying Hare showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 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 Hare has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny to Hare s motions to place the case in abeyance and reformulate his informal brief after the district court rules on a Rule 60(b) motion, or in the alternative to receive an 2 extension to correct and clarify his brief. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
