UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7630
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY MARK WILSON, a/k/a T-Bird,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00379-LDW; 1:07-cv-00804-LDW)
Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: February 15, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Mark Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Mark Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for enlargement of time to file a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and construing the motion as his first
§ 2255 motion and denying that motion, as well as its order denying
Wilson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004) (requiring a
certificate of appealability in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) context). 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. See 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 Wilson
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense
*
Because the district court failed to provide Wilson notice
and an opportunity to amend his motion for enlargement of time
prior to recharacterization, Wilson need not seek this court’s
- 2 -
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
authorization to file a future § 2255 motion raising additional
claims. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-83 (2003).
We express no opinion, however, regarding whether such a motion
would be timely.
- 3 -