Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07630/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07630-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Anthony Mark Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7630

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY MARK WILSON, a/k/a T-Bird,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:04-cr-00379-LDW; 1:07-cv-00804-LDW)

Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: February 15, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Mark Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7630 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*Because the district court failed to provide Wilson notice

and an opportunity to amend his motion for enlargement of time

prior to recharacterization, Wilson need not seek this court’s

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Mark Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for enlargement of time to file a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and construing the motion as his first

§ 2255 motion and denying that motion, as well as its order denying

Wilson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004) (requiring a

certificate of appealability in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) context). 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. See 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 a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense

Appeal: 07-7630 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
authorization to file a future § 2255 motion raising additional

claims. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-83 (2003).

We express no opinion, however, regarding whether such a motion

would be timely.

- 3 -

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: 07-7630 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/15/2008 Pg: 3 of 3