United States v. Wampler ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CECIL EDWARD WAMPLER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-80194-JCT-MFU; 1:04-cr-00067-JCT-MFU-1)
Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R.
Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 483-84
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wampler 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