Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07876/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07876-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Anthony Hickson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7876

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY HICKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-2; 8:13-cv-02790-RWT; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Hickson, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, 

Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States Attorneys, Adam 

Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7876 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Hickson 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 

Hickson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hickson’s motion for 

bail pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 14-7876 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7876 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3