United States v. Michael Thompson

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

MICHAEL CHAD THOMPSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00654-HFF-1; 7:10-cv-70298-HFF)

Submitted: January 24, 2012 Decided: February 1, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Chad Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael Chad Thompson seeks to appeal the district

court’s denial of his discovery motions and the court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)

motion. These 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 Thompson 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

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED