US v. Thomas Norman
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 7:06-cr-00983-HMH-1,7:18-cv-00820-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000335050]. Mailed to: Thomas Tyrone Norman. [18-6508]
Appeal: 18-6508
Doc: 7
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6508
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS TYRONE NORMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00983-HMH-1;
7:18-cv-00820-HMH)
Submitted: July 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Tyrone Norman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Decided: July 24, 2018
Appeal: 18-6508
Doc: 7
Filed: 07/24/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Tyrone Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized.
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 Norman 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 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?