US v. Solomon Dukes, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:94-cr-00589-DCN-2,2:12-cv-00924-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999770861]. Mailed to: Solomon Dukes, Jr.. [15-7799]

Appeal: 15-7799

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7799

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SOLOMON DUKES, JR., a/k/a Junior,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:94-cr-00589-DCN-2; 2:12-cv-00924-DCN)

Submitted:

March 4, 2016

Decided:

March 9, 2016

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Wood, Jr., NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William Norman
Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Peter
Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7799

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Solomon Dukes, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive and untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

See 28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
When
prisoner

the

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

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
Dukes has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7799

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 03/09/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3