Court Opinion

ID: 1027726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:28:29.901843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:29.748292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-7969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JASON CARL THOMAS,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00019-BO-1; 5:07—cv-00009-BO)

Submitted:    January 13, 2009               Decided:   January 20, 2009

Before WILLIAMS,     Chief   Judge,   and   TRAXLER   and   KING,   Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Carl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.      Neal Fowler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Jason Carl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                           The

order is 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.                            Miller-

El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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