US v. David Wheeler
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: D. Wheeler. [15-7026]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
October 20, 2015
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
David A. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wheeler has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wheeler’s motion to
Wheeler’s motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense as
moot because the relevant trial transcripts are already in the
Pg: 3 of 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
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?