Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvon Allen THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-07
Citations: 121 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 04-7879
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvon Allen THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvon Allen THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7879.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 7, 2005.
Alvon Allen Thomas, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alvon Allen Thomas seeks to appeal from the district courts' orders: (1) construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and transferring it to the proper district court, and (2) dismissing his motion as a successive § 2255 motion for which authorization had not been obtained. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his or her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED