Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07155/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Hickman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT HICKMAN, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00507-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-01511-TLW) 

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7155 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Hickman seeks to appeal 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 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 Hickman 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 before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7155 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/20/2019 Pg: 2 of 2