US v. James Hancock, No. 14-6899 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6899 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-6902 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00206-JAB-2; 1:11-cv-00551-JABPTS; 1:07-cr-00071-JAB-1; 1:11-cv-00774-JAB-JLW) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Thomas Hancock, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James court’s order Thomas Hancock accepting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 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 Hancock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4