US v. Frank Bailey, No. 16-6593 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6593 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK BAILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00559-RDB-1; 1:12-cv-03557-RDB) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 27, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion to alter, amend, or otherwise seek relief from the court’s judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a judge circuit justice appealability. or issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Bailey has not made the requisite showing. a certificate We dispense with of appealability oral argument 2 and because Accordingly, we deny dismiss the the facts appeal. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
