Court Opinion

ID: 2753739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-20 20:01:15.996201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:31.935529
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WINDELL NORWOOD HICKS, a/k/a Fly Hicks,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00009-FL-1; 7:12-cv-00116-FL)

Submitted:   November 18, 2014            Decided:   November 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Windell Norwood Hicks, Appellant Pro Se.    Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Shailika
K. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Windell        Norwood    Hicks       seeks    to    appeal       the      district

court’s    order     accepting       the    recommendation            of    the    magistrate

judge and 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    (2000);     see    Miller-El    v.    Cockrell,          537 U.S. 322,   336-38

(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.

            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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3