US v. Lorenzo Hall, No. 14-6083 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6083 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LORENZO HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr 00293-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03208-JFM) Submitted: April 8, 2014 Decided: April 16, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Hall seeks to appeal the district order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or court s The order is judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable 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 motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall has not made the requisite showing. deny Hall s motion 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

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.