US v. Kendinya Hall, No. 16-7452 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7452 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDINYA DEWALTERELL HALL, a/k/a Keon, a/k/a Boosie, a/k/a KenBob, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:09-cr-00117-RBS-DEM-1; 2:16-cv-00352-RBS) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Nicholas John Xenakis, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kendinya Dewalterell Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 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 (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 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 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.
