UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6862
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE D. THOMPSON, a/k/a Buck Naked, a/k/a Wayne Donnell
Thompson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00309-REP-1)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne D. Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. 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 Thompson’s
informal appellate brief 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
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3