No. 14-4277
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00407-REP-1)
Submitted:
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Antoine
Hill
appeals
the
district
courts
judgment
Hill
unreasonable
asserts
because
he
that
his
argues
it
152-month
was
clear
Through
sentence
error
for
is
the
Hill has
he
restates
counsels
assignment
of
appealability
as
of
error,
as
well
as
his
unsuccessful
habeas
When
court, we
have
hybrid
appeal
explained
such
that
as
[i]f
Hills
the
is
before
petitioner
seeks
the
to
666
(4th
Cir.
2007).
If,
on
the
other
hand,
the
need
appealability]
not
comply
with
requirement.
Id.
2253s
(emphasis
[certificate
omitted).
of
Thus,
as
to
any
arguments
Hill
raises
pertaining
to
the
we
may
review
the
merits
of
the
district
courts
dismissal.
First, we discern no error in the district courts
imposition
of
the
152-month
sentence
at
Hills
resentencing.
United
States v. Cobler, 748 F.3d 570, 581 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
___ S. Ct. ___, 2014 WL 3556894 (U.S. July 10, 2014) (No. 145307).
States
v.
Llamas,
599
F.3d
381,
387
(4th
Cir.
2010)
Thus, to
In assessing
from
personal
injury
settlement
he
previously
weight
attributable
to
defendant.
United
States
v.
The calculation of
Id. at 881.
4
error only if, on the entire evidence, [it is] left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We discern no
cash
bundle
found
in
Hills
residence.
Accordingly,
we
the
extent
Hill
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
taken
to
proceeding
this
court
unless
from
circuit
certificate of appealability.
certificate
of
the
final
justice
order
2255
a
will
not
judge
issues
appealability
or
in
issue
absent
the
merits,
demonstrating
district
debatable
that
courts
or
prisoner
satisfies
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
473,
484
is
debatable,
and
that
the
5
motion
states
debatable
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART