US v. Clarence Hicks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9; 1:02-cv-02076-BEL)
November 5, 2008
November 17, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee.
Robert Reeves Harding, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 (2000) motion. unless a circuit justice or judge The order is not appealable issues a certificate of
appealability. 369 F.3d 363,
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal
appealability oral argument
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?