US v. Thomas Pickett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:04-cr-00047-F-1,7:14-cv-00050-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999530029]. Mailed to: Thomas Pickett. [14-7455]

Appeal: 14-7455

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7455

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-00047-F-1; 7:14-cv-00050-F)

Submitted:

February 12, 2015

Decided:

February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Neil Pickett, Appellant Pro Se.
Eric David Goulian,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7455

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Neil Pickett seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order construing his motion to correct a clerical error
as

a

28

U.S.C.

successive.
justice

or

§ 2255

(2012)

The

order

is

judge

issues

a

motion,

not

dismissing

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

and

of

unless

a

it

as

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

or

underlying habeas application states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d

363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Pickett has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument
2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-7455

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 02/18/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3