Wright v. Jackson , 210 F. App'x 299 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7005
    ANDY LEE WRIGHT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RICK JACKSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00044)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2006          Decided:     December 29, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andy Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andy Lee Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief as untimely on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.      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 Wright has not
    made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability        and   dismiss   the    appeal.        In    addition,    we   deny
    Wright’s      pending      motions   to    vacate    judgment     and   dismiss     his
    indictment and “for determination on both 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     habeas
    petition and 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     proceedings or,” in the alternative,
    to appoint counsel.           We   dispense       with    oral    argument    because
    the   facts    and    legal    contentions are adequately presented in the
    - 2 -
    materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7005

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 299

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 12/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024