Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06180/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Creighton Shrader
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Irene C. Berger, District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00270-1; 1:13-cv-33098)

Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 7, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Creighton Shrader, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia; Betty 

Adkins Pullin, Thomas C. Ryan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6180 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/07/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Creighton Shrader 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 

Shrader has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

 * Because the issue was not clearly raised by Shrader or fully 

addressed by the district court, we express no opinion as to 

whether Shrader may be entitled to relief under Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

Appeal: 16-6180 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/07/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 16-6180 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/07/2016 Pg: 3 of 3