Hill v. Beck (4th Cir. 2003)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (May 01, 2003)

Docket number: 03-6112

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/hill-v-beck-18202823
Id. vLex: VLEX-18202823

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6112 SIMARON D. HILL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary of North Carolina

Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, District

Judge. (CA-01-801-1)

Submitted: April 3, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simaron D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Simaron D. Hill, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court§ 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 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 § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (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. DISMISSED