US v. Thomas Norman, No. 14-7132 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS TYRONE NORMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00983-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02775-HMH) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Tyrone Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Tyrone court’s order denying motion, which the unauthorized. justice or relief district The judge Norman order issues on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. court treated not appealable is a seeks certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of as the district § 2255 (2012) successive unless a and 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 Norman has not made the requisite showing. * * Accordingly, we Although the district court granted Norman’s first § 2255 motion and ordered that Norman be resentenced, in this habeas motion, Norman only raises issues pertaining to his convictions. (Continued) 2 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED Norman could have, but did not, raise the issues he seeks to raise in this § 2255 motion in his previous § 2255 motion. Cf. United States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2010) (§ 2255 motion not successive where claims did not exist at time of first § 2255 motion); In re Taylor, 171 F.3d 185, 187-88 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding § 2255 motion not successive where petitioner sought to raise only those issues that originated at the time of his resentencing, after his first § 2255 motion was granted). 3