US v. Larry Thomas, No. 11-7042 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7042 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LARRY THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00044-FL-3; 5:09-cv-00299-FL) Submitted: January 10, 2012 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 6, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Thomas seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues on a his absent a U.S.C.A. certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue 28 of 2255 (West Supp. appealability. 28 2011) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. § showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, 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 2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
