Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06004/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas F. McCoy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS F. MCCOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00197-RAJ-6; 2:16-cv-00384-

RAJ)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas F. McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6004 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas F. McCoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 McCoy 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

 ∗ We confine our review to the issues raised in McCoy’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. 

R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6004 Doc: 30 Filed: 01/23/2020 Pg: 2 of 2