US v. Clarence Hick

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:98-cr-00259-ELH-9,1:13-cv-02274-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999665294]. Mailed to: Clarence Hicks. [14-7795]

Appeal: 14-7795

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7795

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.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:98-cr-00259-ELH-9; 1:13-cv-02274-ELH)

Submitted:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

September 23, 2015

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7795

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Clarence Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his “Supplemental Motion to Motion for Reconsideration”
of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-7795

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 09/23/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3