Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Wampler, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The circuit court judges independently reviewed the record and determined that Wampler did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the circuit court denied Wampler a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-01-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8022

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The circuit court judges independently reviewed the record and determined that Wampler did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the circuit court denied Wampler a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Wampler, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The circuit court judges independently reviewed the record and determined that Wampler did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. As such, the circuit court denied Wampler a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-8022

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CECIL EDWARD WAMPLER, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (1:09-cv-80194-JCT-MFU; 1:04-cr-00067-JCT-MFU-1)

    Submitted:

    January 13, 2010

    Decided:

    January 21, 2010

    Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R.


    Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Cecil

    Edward

    Wampler,

    Jr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255


    (West Supp. 2009) motion.

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    A certificate of appealability

    will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a


    constitutional
    prisoner

    right.

    satisfies

    reasonable

    jurists

    constitutional

    28

    this
    would

    claims

    by

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(2)

    standard
    find
    the

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    any

    district

    (2006).

    assessment

    court

    is

    A
    that

    of

    the

    debatable

    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

    322,

    McDaniel,

    336-38

    (2003);

    Slack

    v.

    529

    U.S.

    473,

    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    483-84
    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wampler has


    not

    made

    the

    certificate
    dispense

    of

    with

    requisite

    showing.

    appealability
    oral

    argument

    and

    Accordingly,
    dismiss

    because

    the

    the

    we

    deny

    appeal.

    facts

    and

    a
    We

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like