US v. Thai Doan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998521248-2] Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00463-JCC-1,1:08-cv-00958-JCC,1:06-cr-00525-JCC-1,1:08-cv-00959-JCC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998630856]. Mailed to: Thai Doan. [11-6171]

Appeal: 11-6171

Document: 25

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THAI HONG DOAN,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00463-JCC-1; 1:06-cr-00525-JCC-1; 1:08cv-00958-JCC; 1:08-cv-00959-JCC)

Submitted:

June 30, 2011

Decided:

July 13, 2011

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thai Hong Doan, Appellant Pro Se. Terill Elise Canfield, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6171

Document: 25

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thai Hong Doan seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion and denying a certificate of appealability.
orders

are

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

Accordingly,

that
we

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Doan

deny

has
Doan’s

not

made

motion

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

the

requisite

for

a

showing.

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 11-6171

Document: 25

Date Filed: 07/13/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3