Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06766/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcellus Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARCELLUS THOMAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00003-WO-1; 1:11-cv-01007-

WO-JLW)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcellus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Angela 

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6766 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcellus 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 

Thomas’s request for 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 

Appeal: 15-6766 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6766 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 3