Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06092/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Thomas Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH THOMAS SMITH, a/k/a Joseph Smith,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:10-cr-00199-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00067-HEH)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6092 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Thomas Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 

Smith 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 contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6092 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 2