United States v. Thomas Waters

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-6688
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6688 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS BRADFORD WATERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00158-BHH-1; 4:19-cv-00004-BHH)

Submitted: July 2, 2025 Decided: July 17, 2025

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Bradford Waters, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6688 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Bradford Waters seeks to appeal the district court’s order, entered in his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding after remand from this court, denying Waters’ claim for relief

based on Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019). 1 The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Waters has not made

the requisite showing. 2 Specifically, and in line with the district court’s analysis, the record

1 In Waters’ first appeal related to his § 2255 motion, we held that Rehaif announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on initial collateral review and remanded Waters’ Rehaif-based challenge to his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction for further consideration. See United States v. Waters, 64 F.4th 199, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2023). 2 Waters also moves to adopt and amend exhibits filed in his prior § 2255 appeal, to incorporate his pro se response to the Government’s motion for summary judgment on remand, and for the appointment of counsel. We deny these motions, but observe that we have considered all the record materials in reviewing this matter.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6688 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/17/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

does not support the notion that, had the jury been instructed as to the knowledge-of-status

element of the § 922(g) offense, Waters could conceivably demonstrate that he lacked the

requisite knowledge of his felon status at the time he committed the charged offense. See

Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 508 (2021) (explaining that, to make the prejudice

showing in the context of a § 922(g) conviction following a jury trial, defendant “has the

burden of showing that, if the District Court had correctly instructed the jury on the mens

rea element of a felon-in-possession offense, there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he

would have been acquitted”). 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED