Case Name: Aquil Khree WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-18
Citations: 190 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 05-7557
Parties: Aquil Khree WIGGINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Aquil Khree WIGGINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7557.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2006.
Decided July 18, 2006.
Aquil Khree Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aquil Khree Wiggins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 his 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Wiggins' motions for appointment of counsel, to amend pleadings, and for a certificate of appealability, and we 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
In his motion to amend pleadings, Wiggins argues that Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-654(B)(2) was recently amended, and now provides that "[t]he provisions of this section shall not apply to a petitioner's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the sole allegation of such petition is that the petitioner was deprived of the right to pursue an appeal from a final judgment of conviction." See Va. Legis. Serv. 836 (West 2005). Wiggins argues that under the amended statute, his claims are not procedurally barred because his first petition only alleged that he was deprived of his right to appeal. The amendment was approved on March 26, 2005, and went into effect on July 1, 2005. The state refused Wiggins' second petition on June 10, 2003. The amended statute does not provide that it applies retroactively, nor has the state supreme court ruled that it applies retroactively. Moreover, we must defer to the state court's application of its procedural bar rules. See Ashe v. Styles, 39 F.3d 80, 86 (4th Cir.1994). This claim is accordingly meritless.