Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07795/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07795-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Hicks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7795

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLARENCE HICKS, a/k/a Bunky,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:98-cr-00259-ELH-9; 1:13-cv-02274-ELH)

Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: September 23, 2015

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7795 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his “Supplemental Motion to Motion for Reconsideration”

of 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

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 

Appeal: 14-7795 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7795 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3