Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06196/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:04-cr-00095-FL-1; 7:12-cv-00162-FL)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant 

United States Attorney, James Bradsher, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE 

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6196 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 

Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Thomas’ motion for 

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 14-6196 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6196 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3