United States v. Thomas , 157 F. App'x 629 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                    Rehearing granted, March 8, 2006
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6553
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DION THOMAS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-00-176-F; CA-04-864-F)
    Submitted:     September 28, 2005           Decided:   December 8, 2005
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dion Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Dion Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.            
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (2000).   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) (2000).     A prisoner satisfies this standard by
    demonstrating    that   reasonable   jurists      would   find    that   his
    constitutional   claims   are   debatable   and    that   any    dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See 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 Thomas 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6553

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 629

Judges: Michael, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/8/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024