US v. Michael Thompson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cr-00057-D-1,4:11-cv-00175-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999344737]. Mailed to: Michael Thompson. [13-8001]
Appeal: 13-8001
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8001
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMPSON,
Defendant -
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00057-D-1; 4:11-cv-00175-D)
Submitted:
April 24, 2014
Decided:
April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina;
Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-8001
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
In a single order, the district court denied Michael
Thompson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
For the
reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Turning
§ 2255
justice
relief,
or
first
the
judge
to
order
the
issues
is
a
portion
not
the
appealable
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of
of
order
unless
denying
a
circuit
appealability.
28
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) (2012).
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.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Thompson has not made the requisite showing.
2
Accordingly,
Appeal: 13-8001
Doc: 7
Filed: 04/28/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Thompson’s
appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion.
Turning to the portion of the order denying Thompson’s
motion for reduction of sentence, we have reviewed the record
and find no abuse of discretion by the district court.
States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
United
Accordingly,
we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
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?