US v. Aaron Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998823705-3] in 12-6406; denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00043-GEC-RSB-1, 7:11-cv-80326-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998924014].. [12-6406, 12-6835]

Appeal: 12-6406

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON EUGENE WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-6835

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON EUGENE WOODS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00043-GEC-RSB-1; 7:11-cv-80326-GECRSB; 7:09-cr-00064-GEC-RSB-1; 7:11-cv-80325-GEC-RSP)

Submitted:

August 22, 2012

Decided: August 24, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 12-6406

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Eugene Woods, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennie L. M. Waering,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-6406

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

appeals,

Aaron

Eugene

Woods

seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motions from two separate
criminal

convictions.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

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

on

both

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 Woods has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.

We

deny Woods’ motion for transcripts at government expense.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because
3

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6406

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/24/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4