UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ENOS A. WILKERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:01-cr-355-RLW; 3:04-cv-00212-RLW)
Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 20, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Enos A. Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Enos A. Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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 (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 Wilkerson’s
motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
We decline to consider Wilkerson’s claims asserted for the
first time in this appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250
(4th Cir. 1993). To the extent Wilkerson preserved his claim of
error under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by
including it in a motion to amend below, he is not entitled to
relief because we have held that Booker is not retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review. United States v. Morris,
429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -