Wright v. Jackson, No. 06-7005 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7005 ANDY LEE WRIGHT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00044) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andy Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andy Lee Wright seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief as untimely on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability the Wright s and pending dismiss motions to appeal. vacate In addition, judgment and we dismiss deny his indictment and for determination on both 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings or, in the alternative, to appoint counsel. the facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because contentions are adequately presented in the - 2 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.