Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Alvon Allen Thomas. The district court had construed Thomas' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferred it, then dismissed it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies Thomas a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Without such a certificate, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-02-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7879

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Alvon Allen Thomas. The district court had construed Thomas' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferred it, then dismissed it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies Thomas a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Without such a certificate, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    United States v. Thomas, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Alvon Allen Thomas. The district court had construed Thomas' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferred it, then dismissed it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. The appeals court denies Thomas a certificate of appealability, finding he did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Without such a certificate, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7879

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus

    ALVON ALLEN THOMAS,


    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District
    of North Carolina, at Durham.
    N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CR-97-118, CA-04-535-1)

    Submitted:

    January 27, 2005

    Decided:

    February 7, 2005

    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alvon Allen Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alvon Allen Thomas seeks to appeal from the district
    courts orders: (1) construing his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2000) petition
    as a 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion and transferring it to the
    proper district court, and (2) dismissing his motion as a successive
    2255 motion for which authorization had not been obtained.

    The

    orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his or her


    constitutional

    claims

    are

    debatable

    and

    that

    any

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record
    and

    conclude

    that

    Thomas

    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 the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like