United States of America v. Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS MONIQUE BRADDY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00048-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob
Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., appeals the district
court’s order denying his “Motion for Reconsideration of 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and/or Motion Under Audita Querela.” Having
reviewed the record, we affirm the district court’s order to the
extent it denies Braddy a writ of audita querela. See United
States v. Braddy, No. 4:07-cr-00048-RBS-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. July 29,
2013).
The portion of the district court’s order construing
Braddy’s petition as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion
and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, as here, 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy has
not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
affirm in part, and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral

-- 2 of 3 --

3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --