US v. Tyrone Wilson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00180-RAJ-7,2:15-cv-00408-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999993524]. Mailed to: Tyrone Wilson. [16-6962]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6962 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6962 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYRONE ALPHONZO WILSON, a/k/a TT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00180-RAJ-7; 2:15-cv-00408-RAJ) Submitted: December 20, 2016 Decided: December 27, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6962 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 16-6962 Doc: 8 contentions Filed: 12/27/2016 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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?