Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07363/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07363-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Lamont Drake
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7363

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHILLIP LAMONT DRAKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:09-cr-00950-TLW-3; 4:12-cv-03659-TLW)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Lamont Drake, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7363 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Lamont Drake seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion, and has filed motions for appointment of counsel, to 

place his appeal in abeyance, and for leave to file a 

supplemental informal brief. The district court’s order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 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 Drake has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

grant Drake’s motion for leave to file a supplemental informal 

Appeal: 13-7363 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

brief, deny as moot his motion to place his appeal in abeyance,

deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-7363 Doc: 19 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3