From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Braddy

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 7, 2010
381 F. App'x 309 (4th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-8146.

Submitted: June 1, 2010.

Decided: June 7, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00048-RBSTEM-1).

Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., appeals the district court's order treating his motion for writ of mandamus as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Braddy

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 7, 2010
381 F. App'x 309 (4th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Braddy

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Monique BRADDY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 7, 2010

Citations

381 F. App'x 309 (4th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Portillo-Sosa v. United States

Thus, the motion is properly construed as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United…