US v. Dustin Hinckle, No. 21-7197 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-7197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DUSTIN WADE HINCKLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:15-cr-00027-GMG-RWT-1; 3:18cv-00102-GMG) Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dustin Wade Hinckle, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dustin Wade Hinckle seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hinckle’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Hinckle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hinckle’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.