UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6789
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN ANTHONY HICKMAN,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00261-JFM-8; 1:13-cv-03571-JFM; 1:13-cv-03647-JFM)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Anthony Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Wallner,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Anthony Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
his subsequent motion for a certificate of appealability. The
orders are 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
Hickman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Hickman’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3