United States v. Kearney

418 F. App'x 251

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED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

No. 10-7367

v. THOMAS TRAY SHARMONE KEARNEY,

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 these consolidated cases, Thomas Tray Sharmone

Kearney seeks to appeal the district court’s 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 assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 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 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. We deny Kearney’s motion

to redact the opinion. 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