US v. Wilson

Filing 920080603

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (4:03-cr-70134-nkm-3; 7:07-cv-267-nkm-mfu) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a A judge certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any demonstrating reasonable jurists find 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wilson's motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

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?