Thorne v. US

Filing 920061221

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7297 LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:94-cr-00453-DKC; 06-1022-DKC) Submitted: December 4, 2006 Decided: December 21, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linwood Douglas Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Linwood Douglas Thorne appeals the district court's order construing his motion for sentence review under 18 U.S.C. 3742 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000), and subsequently dismissing the 2255 motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a substantial 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 and any dispositive rulings are 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 Thorne 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 To the extent that Thorne's informal brief filed in this court can be construed as a request for this court's permission to file a successive 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b), we deny it. - 2 - * legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?