US v. Daryl Wilkes, No. 08-4542 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARYL WILKES, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00161-RBS-1) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marvin D. Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daryl Wilkes seeks to appeal the district court s order granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 claims by showing U.S.C. this would appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is of a 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, 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 Wilkes 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 2

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.