US v. Michael Thompson, No. 13-8001 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8001 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00057-D-1; 4:11-cv-00175-D) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In a single order, the district court denied Michael Thompson s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. Turning § 2255 justice relief, or first the judge to order the issues is a portion not the appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of of order unless denying a circuit appealability. 28 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 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Thompson s appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. Turning to the portion of the order denying Thompson s motion for reduction of sentence, we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). United Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
