Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07026/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David A. Wheeler
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID A. WHEELER, a/k/a Sampson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-3; 2:14-cv-00029-MSD)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, 

Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorneys, V. 

Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Norfolk, Virginia

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7026 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David A. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is 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 

Wheeler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wheeler’s motion to 

appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We further deny 

Wheeler’s motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense as 

moot because the relevant trial transcripts are already in the 

Appeal: 15-7026 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7026 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3