Court Opinion

ID: 1016444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:49:30.882331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:39.323269
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

REGGIE EUGENE HICKS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-316; CA-05-180-3)

Submitted:   June 23, 2005                  Decided:    July 1, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Eugene Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.         Brian Ronald Hood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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

                                  - 2 -