US v. Frankie Doctor, Sr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 3:05-cr-00681-JFA-1,3:12-cv-00832-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092334]. Mailed to: Frankie Doctor, Sr. [13-6205]

Appeal: 13-6205

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANKIE LANE DOCTOR, SR., a/k/a Nose,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00681-JFA-1; 3:12-cv-00832-JFA)

Submitted:

April 18, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Lane Doctor, Sr.,
Haynes, Assistant United
Carolina, for Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
Stacey Denise
States Attorney, Columbia, South

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6205

Doc: 5

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Frankie Lane Doctor, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

dismissing

(West Supp. 2012) motion.

as

untimely

his

28

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

The order 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.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Doctor has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-6205

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 04/23/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3