Court Opinion

ID: 1014631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:19:59.692167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:29.811988
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-7006

ARSEAN L. HICKS,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

D. A. BRAXTON, Warden,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-885-1)

Submitted:   August 11, 2004                 Decided:   October 28, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arsean L. Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Arsean L. Hicks appeals from the dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed.           An appeal may not

be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 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 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 jurists of

reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 -