Thorne v. United States , 210 F. App'x 336 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7297
LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:94-cr-00453-DKC; 06-1022-DKC)
Submitted: December 4, 2006 Decided: December 21, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linwood Douglas Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linwood Douglas Thorne appeals the district court's order
construing his motion for sentence review under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(West 2000 & Supp. 2006) as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000), and subsequently dismissing the § 2255 motion
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because it was
successive and unauthorized. 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims and any dispositive rulings are debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Thorne 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
*
To the extent that Thorne’s informal brief filed in this
court can be construed as a request for this court’s permission to
file a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), we deny
it.
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -