Arsean Hicks v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00405-MHL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000052211].. [16-7501]

Appeal: 16-7501

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7501

ARSEAN LAMONE HICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
M. Hannah Lauck, District
Judge. (3:15-cv-00405-MHL)

Submitted:

March 24, 2017

Decided:

March 30, 2017

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James F. Neale, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellant. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7501

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arsean Lamone Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition

unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

as

an

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 petition 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.

2

Appeal: 16-7501

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/30/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3