Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Scott Thompson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    45 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Scott William Thompson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Thompson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Thompson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7135

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Scott William Thompson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Thompson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Thompson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    45 views3 pages

    United States v. Scott Thompson, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Scott William Thompson appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Thompson did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Thompson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7135

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SCOTT WILLIAM THOMPSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (4:06-cr-00031-JBF-JEB-1; 4:10-cv-00131-JBF)

    Submitted:

    November 15, 2011

    Decided:

    November 18, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Scott William Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Eric Matthew Hurt,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Scott William Thompson seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West
    Supp.

    2011)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    (2006).

    certificate

    of

    appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    on

    both

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    must

    ruling

    is

    debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the


    denial of a constitutional right.
    We

    have

    independently

    reviewed

    the

    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.


    record

    and

    Thompson has not made the requisite showing.

    conclude

    that

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like