Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06789/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06789-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Anthony Hickman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6789

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN ANTHONY HICKMAN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. 

(1:07-cr-00261-JFM-8; 1:13-cv-03571-JFM; 1:13-cv-03647-JFM)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Anthony Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Wallner, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6789 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Anthony Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

his subsequent motion for a certificate of appealability. The 

orders are 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 

Hickman’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

Appeal: 16-6789 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6789 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3