Mondale Hicklin v. Chadwick Dotson
Mondale Hicklin v. Chadwick Dotson
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6875 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6875
MONDALE LEON HICKLIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-00886-RDA-LRV)
Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mondale Leon Hicklin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6875 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Mondale Leon Hicklin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here,
the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41
(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Hicklin’s informal brief, we
conclude that Hicklin has not made the requite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also
Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important
document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that
brief.”). 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished