Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07266/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CECIL EDWARD WAMPLER, JR., 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00067-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80020) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. 

Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-7266 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/20/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Wampler has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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: 08-7266 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/20/2008 Pg: 2 of 2