United States v. Michael Hickson ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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