Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07799/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Dukes 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 legal

Appeal: 15-7799 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7799 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3