Case Name: Arsean L. HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 234 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 07-6228
Parties: Arsean L. HICKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden WASHINGTON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Arsean L. HICKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden WASHINGTON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6228.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 24, 2007.
Arsean L. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arsean L. Hicks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (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 Mid legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.