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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Tyrone Wilson. [16-6962]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
December 20, 2016
December 27, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
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).
When the district court
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.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?