Court Opinion

ID: 1017451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:05:11.336333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:08.597497
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KENNETH EDMOND THOMAS,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-02-4-A; CA-05-209)

Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Edmond Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Kenneth   Edmond    Thomas   seeks   to    appeal    the    district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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

                                   - 2 -