United States v. Hicks

389 F. App'x 223

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 3, 2010
• Docket: 10-6563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6563

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLARENCE HICKS, a/k/a Bunky,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9; 1:02-cv-02076-BEL)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).

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) (2006). 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 Hicks 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

2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED