Wright v. Jackson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ANDY LEE WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00044)
October 18, 2006
December 29, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andy Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Andy Lee Wright seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief as untimely on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wright has not made the requisite showing. appealability Wright's and dismiss motions Accordingly, we deny a certificate of the to appeal. vacate In addition, and we deny his
indictment and "for determination on both 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings or," in the alternative, to appoint counsel. the facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because
contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?