Keith Wilson v. Superintendent Don Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999099849-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999156483]. Mailed to: Keith D. Wilson. [13-6434]

Appeal: 13-6434

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6434

KEITH D. WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT DON WOOD; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS THEODIS
BECK,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD)

Submitted:

July 18, 2013

Decided:

July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6434

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith D. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his

28

U.S.C.

appealable

§ 2254

unless

(2006)
circuit

a

petition.
justice

The
or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006);

Reid

363,

v.

Angelone,

certificate

of

369

F.3d

appealability

369

will

(4th
not

Cir.

2004).
absent

issue

A
“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating

merits,

district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Wilson

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,
2

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

We

Appeal: 13-6434

Doc: 10

dispense

with

contentions
before

Filed: 07/23/2013

this

oral

are
court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

because

adequately
and

the

presented

argument

would

not

facts

in
aid

and

legal

the

materials

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3