United States v. Thompson , 266 F. App'x 256 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7348
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID CARL THOMPSON, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:03-cr-00477-NCT-1; 1:06-cv-00725-NCT)
    Submitted:   February 21, 2008           Decided:   February 26, 2008
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Carl Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Carl Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and denying relief on 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 for 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: 07-7348

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 256

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 2/26/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023