Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07432/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7432

FRANKLIN CHARLES SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

KENNETH STOLLE, Virginia Beach Sheriff,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-00479-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: December 21, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin Charles Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Appeal: 15-7432 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7432 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Charles Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 petition 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 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Smith’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel is 

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 15-7432 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7432 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 4 of 4