UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS LAGENE FRANKLIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00007-RJC-1; 3:16-cv00185-RJC)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: February 15, 2019

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Lagene Franklin, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lagene Franklin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing with 

prejudice Franklin’s authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion in which 

Franklin asserted a Johnson1 challenge to his 180-month armed career criminal sentence. 

The district court concluded that the Johnson claim was procedurally defaulted and that 

Franklin did not establish actual prejudice to excuse the default.2

 Franklin, who now 

proceeds pro se, timely noted an appeal. 

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 

 1 Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

2 “Where a defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to raise it on 

direct review, the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant can first 

demonstrate either ‘cause’ and actual ‘prejudice,’ or that he is ‘actually innocent.’” 

Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (citations omitted). Here, the district 

court concluded that Franklin established “cause.” 
3

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 Franklin has not 

made the requisite showing. Specifically, Franklin’s failure to contest in his informal 

brief the district court’s dispositive procedural rationale forecloses any challenge to that 

ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss this 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