Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06962/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district 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). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 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. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 16-6962 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6962 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 3 of 3