US v. Thomas Braddy, Jr., No. 13-7272 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS MONIQUE BRADDY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00048-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: THACKER, Circuit September 27, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Zlotnick, Assistant United Virginia, for Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. States Attorney, Howard Newport Jacob News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Monique court s order denying U.S.C. § 2255 and/or his Braddy, Jr., Motion Motion for Under appeals the district Reconsideration Audita Querela. of 28 Having reviewed the record, we affirm the district court s order to the extent it denies Braddy a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Braddy, No. 4:07-cr-00048-RBS-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2013). The portion of the district court s order construing Braddy s petition as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable unless a circuit appealability. justice or judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When, as here, 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, affirm in part, and dismiss in part. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
