Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie Eugene HICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-01
Citations: 138 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 05-6561
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reggie Eugene HICKS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 511–511

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Reggie Eugene HICKS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6561.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2005.
Decided July 1, 2005.
Reggie Eugene Hicks, Appellant pro se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Reggie Eugene Hicks seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED