US v. Hilton Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:97-cr-00355-WMN-3,1:11-cv-01932-WMN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998751746]. Mailed to: Hilton Thomas. [11-7040]

Appeal: 11-7040

Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HILTON THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:97-cr-00355-WMN-3; 1:11-cv-01932-WMN)

Submitted:

December 20, 2011

Decided:

December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Robert Reeves Harding,
Baltimore, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7040

Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hilton

Thomas

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order construing his “First Amendment Petition,” as a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, and dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

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

court’s

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

Thomas has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

conclude

that

Accordingly, we deny

dismiss

because

2

and

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 11-7040

Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/23/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3