Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07144/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director
Appellee
Frank Johnson Lee
Appellant
Unknown
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7144

FRANK JOHNSON LEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN; DIRECTOR, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondents- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00854-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Johnson Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7144 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Johnson Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 

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

Lee’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for 

injunctive relief pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-7144 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/24/2015 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: 15-7144 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3