Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Edward Thomas's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, which the district court had construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore dismissed Thomas's appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6132

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Edward Thomas's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, which the district court had construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore dismissed Thomas's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Thomas v. Stansberry, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Edward Thomas's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion, which the district court had construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore dismissed Thomas's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6132

    JAMES EDWARD THOMAS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (5:05-hc-00720-FL)

    Submitted: June 22, 2006

    Decided: June 29, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    James Edward Thomas seeks to appeal the district courts
    orders construing his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000) motion as a 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000) motion, denying it, and denying his motion for
    reconsideration.

    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


    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 -

    You might also like