United States v. Thompson , 269 F. App'x 258 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7717
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LARRY GENE THOMPSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:91-cr-00052-GCM-3; 5:07-cv-00120-GCM)
    Submitted:   February 28, 2008            Decided: March 10, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Gene Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Gene Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    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   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 Thompson has
    not made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s
    motion to vacate the district court’s decision, 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: 07-7717

Citation Numbers: 269 F. App'x 258

Judges: Michael, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 3/10/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023