Court Opinion

ID: 1025534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:51:30.753829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:23.124880
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 08-6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MELVIN B. WILKERSON, a/k/a Melvin Coleman,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-4; 2:07-cv-00493-RAJ)

Submitted:     April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin B. Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.      Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Melvin B. Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and

successive.      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 Wilkerson 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

                                   - 2 -