This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitOct 20, 2008
296 Fed. Appx. 354 (4th Cir. 2008)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • United States v. Wampler

    …Wampler appealed the court's order dismissing his § 2255 motion, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United…

  • United States v. Wampler

    …Court records indicate that Wampler previously filed § 2255 motions concerning this same conviction and…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 08-7266.

Submitted: October 14, 2008.

Decided: October 20, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00067-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80020).

Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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, 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 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.