Court Opinion

ID: 2797005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-28 19:00:54.907523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:42.872570
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7876

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY HICKSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-2; 8:13-cv-02790-RWT; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)

Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Hickson, Appellant Pro Se.   Bryan E. Foreman,
Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States Attorneys, Adam
Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael     Anthony     Hickson     seeks       to      appeal       the     district

court’s    order     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

Hickson has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hickson’s motion for

bail pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal.                          We dispense with

oral    argument     because    the     facts      and      legal     contentions          are

                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3