Case Name: Thomas L. HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 702 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 17-6945
Parties: Thomas L. HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 702
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Thomas L. HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6945
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 16, 2017
Decided: November 21, 2017
Thomas L. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Hicks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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