Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilkerson v. Commonwealth of VA, 03-7715 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7715 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7715 ANTOINE WILKERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-03-902-AM) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine Wilkerson, Appell
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7715



ANTOINE WILKERSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-902-AM)


Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided:   February 9, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antoine Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Antoine Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).     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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.     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 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Wilkerson has not made the requisite

showing.       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.           We dispense 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




                                       - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer