Elroda Thompson v. USA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000019084-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00434-CCE-1,1:16-cv-00438-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000099595]. Mailed to: Elroda Thompson. [16-3122]

Appeal: 16-3122

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/13/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-3122

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELRODA SHAVAYA THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00434-CCE-1; 1:16-cv-00438CCE-LPA)

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 13, 2017

Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elroda Shavaya Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorney, Steven N. Baker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-3122

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/13/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Elroda Shavaya Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 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. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Thompson’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2