US v. Thomas Kearney, No. 10-6907 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6907 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS TRAY SHARMONE KEARNEY, Defendant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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In seeks Kearney these to consolidated appeal the cases, district Thomas court s Tray Sharmone order denying relief on his 28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 debatable or assessment wrong. Slack of the constitutional v. McDaniel, 529 claims U.S. is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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. to redact the opinion. We deny Kearney s motion 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
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.
