US v. Thomas Gena

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00303-CMC-1,3:09-cv-70029-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998452877] [10-6247]

US v. Thomas Gena

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6247 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/26/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS J. GENA, a/k/a Thomas Gena, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00303-CMC-1; 3:09-cv-70029-CMC) Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 26, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6247 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/26/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Thomas J. Gena seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that we Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Gena has his not made the for requisite a showing. of

Accordingly,

deny

motion

certificate

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Case: 10-6247 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/26/2010

Page: 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3