UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6907
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS TRAY SHARMONE KEARNEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-7168
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS TRAY SHARMONE KEARNEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-7367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS TRAY SHARMONE KEARNEY,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W.
Boyle, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00015-BO-1; 2:09-cv-00055-BO)
Submitted: February 14, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Tray Sharmone Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Thomas Tray Sharmone
Kearney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and
its denial of Kearney’s motions to reconsider and other
post-judgment motions.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369
(4th Cir. 2004). 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 Kearney has not made the showing required for issuance of a
3
certificate of appealability. We therefore deny certificates of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. We deny Kearney’s motion
to redact the opinion. 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
4