US v. Thai Doan, No. 11-6171 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6171 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THAI HONG DOAN, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00463-JCC-1; 1:06-cr-00525-JCC-1; 1:08cv-00958-JCC; 1:08-cv-00959-JCC) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thai Hong Doan, Appellant Pro Se. Terill Elise Canfield, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thai Hong Doan seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and denying a certificate of appealability. orders are issues not a appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a unless of circuit justice appealability. or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. a The showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude Accordingly, that we Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Doan deny has Doan s not made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the requisite for a showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the 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.
