Court Opinion

ID: 1014308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:14:48.259745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:40.993358
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

DAVID ALLEN WILSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-95-6; CA-99-553-7)

Submitted:   September 9, 2004        Decided:   September 15, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Allen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie Brownlee, United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           David Allen Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under Rule 60(b) seeking

reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion.   An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 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    his

constitutional    claims   are   debatable   and    that    any     dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (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 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 -