Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Thorne v. United States, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Linwood Douglas Thorne appealed a district court's dismissal of his motion for sentence review. The district court had construed Thorne's motion as a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it as successive and unauthorized. The appeals court denied Thorne's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he had not shown the denial of a constitutional right. It also denied his request to file a successive § 2255 motion and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Thorne v. United States, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Linwood Douglas Thorne appealed a district court's dismissal of his motion for sentence review. The district court had construed Thorne's motion as a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it as successive and unauthorized. The appeals court denied Thorne's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he had not shown the denial of a constitutional right. It also denied his request to file a successive § 2255 motion and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7297

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which Linwood Douglas Thorne appealed a district court's dismissal of his motion for sentence review. The district court had construed Thorne's motion as a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it as successive and unauthorized. The appeals court denied Thorne's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he had not shown the denial of a constitutional right. It also denied his request to file a successive § 2255 motion and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    0 views3 pages

    Thorne v. United States, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Linwood Douglas Thorne appealed a district court's dismissal of his motion for sentence review. The district court had construed Thorne's motion as a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it as successive and unauthorized. The appeals court denied Thorne's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he had not shown the denial of a constitutional right. It also denied his request to file a successive § 2255 motion and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-7297

    LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:94-cr-00453-DKC; 06-1022-DKC)

    Submitted:

    December 4, 2006

    Decided:

    December 21, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linwood Douglas Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Linwood Douglas Thorne appeals the district court's order
    construing his motion for sentence review under 18 U.S.C. 3742
    (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.
    2255 (2000), and subsequently dismissing the 2255 motion
    without

    prejudice

    for

    lack

    successive and unauthorized.

    of

    jurisdiction

    because

    it

    was

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).
    not

    issue

    absent

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    of

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists


    would

    find

    that

    the

    district

    courts

    assessment

    of

    his

    constitutional claims and any dispositive rulings are debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

    v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
    683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
    conclude

    that

    Thorne

    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

    To the extent that Thornes informal brief filed in this


    court can be construed as a request for this courts permission to
    file a successive 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b), we deny
    it.
    - 2 -

    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before


    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like