US v. Walker

Filing 920080111


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7594 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IVEY WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00022-9) Submitted: December 14, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Brady Banzhoff, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief in part on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 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." 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any demonstrating reasonable jurists find 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). Walker has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a We dispense certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are We note that the district court granted 2255 relief in part; the Government's appeal of that decision in No. 06-7582 remains pending before the court. - 2 - * adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?