Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

U.S. v. HICKS, 332 Fed.Appx. 836 (4th Cir. 2009)

United States, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vance HICKS,a/k/a 19, a/k/a Jeffrey Gordan, a/k/a John Williams,Defendant-Appellant., 332 F. App'x 836 (4th Cir. 2009)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-10-05
Topic
general

U.S. v. HICKS, 332 Fed.Appx. 836 (4th Cir. 2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vance HICKS,a/k/a 19, a/k/a Jeffrey Gordan, a/k/a John Williams,Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-6391.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: September 29, 2009. Decided: October 5, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. HICKS, 332 Fed.Appx. 836 (4th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

U.S. v. HICKS,332 Fed.Appx. 836(4th Cir. 2009)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vance HICKS,
a/k/a 19, a/k/a Jeffrey Gordan, a/k/a John Williams,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6391.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 29, 2009.
Decided: October 5, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:04-CR-00626-DCN-1; 2:08-cv-70051-DCN).
Vance Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vance Hicks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.Miller-El v.Cockrell,537 U.S. 322,336-38,123 S.Ct. 1029,154 L.Ed.2d 931(2003);Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473,484,120 S.Ct. 1595,146 L.Ed.2d 542(2000);Rose v.Lee,252 F.3d 676,683-84(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in thePage 837materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.DISMISSED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩