US v. Anthony Wilkins, Jr., No. 09-6566 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANTHONY WILKINS, JR., Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cr-00149-1; 2:08-cv-01123-1) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Wilkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Monica Lynn Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony court s order Wilkins, accepting Jr., the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district denial (2006). demonstrating assessment court is of a A that of debatable the 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 Wilkins has not made certificate the of requisite showing. appealability and Accordingly, dismiss the we deny appeal. a We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal are 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.