UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7026
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. WHEELER, a/k/a Sampson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-3; 2:14-cv-00029-MSD)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorneys, V.
Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David A. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). 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
Wheeler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wheeler’s motion to
appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We further deny
Wheeler’s motion for transcripts at the Government’s expense as
moot because the relevant trial transcripts are already in the
2
record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3