United States v. Antonio Thompson , 697 F. App'x 780 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00128-CCB-1; 1:17-cv-00750-CCB)
Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Tamera Lynn Fine, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Christine
Marie Celeste, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
successive 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 Thompson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
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