UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6097
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY KEITH WILSON,
Defendant – Appellant,
v.
RANDY MARTIN; LUTHER BRYAN; ALISIA H. AKBAR; LACARIA BROWN;
GEORGEAN MCCONNELL; GUSSIE D. NOLLKAMPER; FLORENCE
NOLLKAMPER; PHYLLIS ROLAND; CHRISTOPHER M. MORRIS; LAVACA
COUNTY TEXAS; JOSEPH E. MCCONNELL; JOHN M. WARTHER; WELLS
FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED; CHERYL L. AMAKER; DONNA
C. ADKINS; CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Parties-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-10; 3:10-cv-70232-CMC)
Submitted: June 22, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Keith Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C.
Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Keith Wilson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2010) motion. The district court’s order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. 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
Wilson’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4