US v. Mark Wood, No. 11-6091 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6091 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK WAYNE WOODS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-30054-nkm-1; 5:10-cv-80247-nkm-mfu) Submitted: June 7, 2011 Decided: June 15, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Wayne Woods, Appellant Pro Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee. Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Wayne Woods seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless The a denial circuit appealability. of his justice § 2255 motion is judge issues a or 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). not appealable certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woods has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
