Court Opinion

ID: 4401009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-28 19:00:22.570057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:43.753298
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 18-7518

OZELIA HICKS, JR.,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00772-REP-RCY)

Submitted: May 23, 2019                                           Decided: May 28, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ozelia Hicks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ozelia Hicks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 (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 petition 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 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hicks’ motion to

compel production of documents. 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

                                             2