Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hicks v. Washington, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    1) Arsean L. Hicks appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. This will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Hicks did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-07-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6228

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Arsean L. Hicks appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. This will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Hicks did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    Hicks v. Washington, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Arsean L. Hicks appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. This will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Hicks did not make the requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6228

    ARSEAN L. HICKS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN WASHINGTON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-01405-CMH)

    Submitted: July 19, 2007

    Decided:

    July 24, 2007

    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Arsean L. Hicks seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (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 the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like