US v. James Walton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:07-cr-00017-F-1,2:11-cv-00069-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999207744]. Mailed to: James Walton. [13-6616]

Appeal: 13-6616

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EARL WALTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00017-F-1; 2:11-cv-00069-F)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Decided:

October 3, 2013

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Earl Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6616

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Earl Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Walton has not made the requisite showing.
while

we

informal

grant
brief,

Walton’s

motion

we

a

dismiss the appeal.

deny

for

leave

certificate

of

to

Accordingly,
supplement

his

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

2

Appeal: 13-6616

facts

Doc: 10

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 10/03/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

Court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3