United States v. Thomas Braddy, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Thomas Braddy, Jr., 556 F. App'x 277 (4th Cir. 2014)

United States v. Thomas Braddy, Jr.

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS MONIQUE BRADDY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00048-RBS-1; 4:13-cv-00162-RBS)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., 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 Braddy 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Unpublished