United States v. James Thorpe ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-6270      Doc: 7         Filed: 07/29/2022    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6270
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES STEPHEN THORPE, a/k/a J1,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00074-D-1; 5:21-cv-00275-D)
    Submitted: July 26, 2022                                            Decided: July 29, 2022
    Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Stephen Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-6270         Doc: 7       Filed: 07/29/2022      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    James Stephen Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
    Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (2017). 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.
    Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorpe has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we grant Thorpe’s motion to amend his motion
    for a certificate of appealability, we deny his 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6270

Filed Date: 7/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2022