US v. Wayne Thompson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00309-REP-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999973295]. Mailed to: Wayne Thompson. [16-6862]

Appeal: 16-6862

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6862

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE D. THOMPSON, a/k/a Buck Naked, a/k/a Wayne Donnell
Thompson,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00309-REP-1)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

November 22, 2016

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne D. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6862

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wayne
order

D.

Thompson

dismissing

motion.
judge

as

to

successive

appeal
his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

court’s

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

seeks

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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 Thompson’s
informal appellate brief and conclude that Thompson has not made
the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-6862

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3