Wheatley v. Young

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 15, 2004
Docket03-7052
StatusUnpublished

This text of Wheatley v. Young (Wheatley v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wheatley v. Young, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7052

PHILLIP ORLANDO WHEATLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1552-AM)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Orlando Wheatley, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Phillip Orlando Wheatley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order and order on reconsideration dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition. Wheatley cannot appeal these orders unless

a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability,

and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326 (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 Wheatley 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 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wheatley v. Young, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheatley-v-young-ca4-2004.