Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-07363/USCOURTS-ca4-10-07363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7363

DARIUS T. HICKS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

TRACY S. RAY,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00569-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.*

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

 * This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006).

Appeal: 10-7363 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Darius T. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7363 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Darius T. Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 10-7363 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 3 of 4
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-7363 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/04/2011 Pg: 4 of 4