Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 F. App'x 541

Hill v. Beck

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided May 1, 2003

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-05-01

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee · Barajas-Aguilar v. United States

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2003-05-01

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Simaron D. Hill, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the *542 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶2 DISMISSED.

/62/fappx/541 · .json · Public domain