US v. Clarence Hick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9,1:02-cv-02076-BEL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998560455].. [10-7387]

Case: 10-7387

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7387

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:

March 31, 2011

Decided:

April 5, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7387

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 2

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.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Hicks

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2

Case: 10-7387

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/05/2011

Page: 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3