Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06170/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darnell Thompson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARNELL THOMPSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:08-cr-00464-HMH-1; 6:09-cv-70131-HMH)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darnell Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6170 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Darnell Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Thompson 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

Appeal: 10-6170 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6170 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3