US v. David Wheeler
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999631056-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999630666-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-3,2:14-cv-00029-MSD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684710]. Mailed to: D. Wheeler. [15-7026]
Appeal: 15-7026
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. WHEELER, a/k/a Sampson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-3; 2:14-cv-00029-MSD)
Submitted:
October 20, 2015
Decided:
October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se.
Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorneys, V.
Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7026
Doc: 12
Filed: 10/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David A. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
jurists
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
Slack
this
standard
find
U.S.
that
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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wheeler has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wheeler’s motion to
appoint
counsel,
and
dismiss
the
appeal.
We
further
deny
Wheeler’s motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense as
moot because the relevant trial transcripts are already in the
2
Appeal: 15-7026
Doc: 12
record.
legal
before
Filed: 10/23/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
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?