United States v. Thomas Norman , 585 F. App'x 265 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS TYRONE NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cr-00983-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02775-HMH)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Tyrone Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen,
III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Tyrone Norman seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion, which the district court treated as 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)(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 Norman has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
*
Although the district court granted Norman’s first § 2255
motion and ordered that Norman be resentenced, in this habeas
motion, Norman only raises issues pertaining to his convictions.
(Continued)
2
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
Norman could have, but did not, raise the issues he seeks to
raise in this § 2255 motion in his previous § 2255 motion. Cf.
United States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2010)
(§ 2255 motion not successive where claims did not exist at time
of first § 2255 motion); In re Taylor, 171 F.3d 185, 187-88 (4th
Cir. 1999) (finding § 2255 motion not successive where
petitioner sought to raise only those issues that originated at
the time of his resentencing, after his first § 2255 motion was
granted).
3