United States v. Damien Thomas ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7168
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMIEN HENRY THOMAS, a/k/a Boo Boo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-6841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAMIEN HENRY THOMAS, a/k/a Boo Boo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14-cr-00519-PWG-1; 8:18-cv-01551-PWG)
Submitted: October 23, 2020 Decided: November 3, 2020
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Damien Henry Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Regina Sykes, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Damien Henry Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Thomas has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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
3