Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06189/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6189

TIMOTHY M. WILSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00527-gec-mfu)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 4, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy M. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6189 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy M. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wilson’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6189 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2