United States v. DeAngelo Thorpe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. DeAngelo Thorpe, 500 F. App'x 219 (4th Cir. 2012)

United States v. DeAngelo Thorpe

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7522

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEANGELO LAVALE THORPE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00129-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00112-REP)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeAngelo Lavale Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

DeAngelo Lavale Thorpe seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West

Supp. 2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Thorpe 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished