Keith Wilson v. Superintendent Don Wood, No. 13-6434 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6434 KEITH D. WILSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT DON WOOD; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS THEODIS BECK, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith D. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless (2006) circuit a petition. justice The or order judge is issues not a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid 363, v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating merits, district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at the 484-85. conclude We that have Wilson independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with contentions before this oral are court argument because adequately and the presented argument would not facts in aid and legal the materials 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.