Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony HICKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 600 F. App'x 160
Docket Number: No. 14-7876
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony HICKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 160–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony HICKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7876.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 28, 2015.
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.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.