Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07455/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Neil Pickett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7455

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS NEIL PICKETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:04-cr-00047-F-1; 7:14-cv-00050-F)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Neil Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7455 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Neil Pickett seeks to appeal from the district 

court’s order construing his motion to correct a clerical error 

as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as 

successive. 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 or 

underlying habeas application states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 

363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pickett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7455 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7455 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3