Elroda Thompson v. USA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-3122 Doc: 23 Filed: 06/13/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ELRODA SHAVAYA THOMPSON, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?