US v. Eric A. Walton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999412640-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:94-cr-00021-FPS-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999493694]. Mailed to: Eric Walton. [14-7017]

Appeal: 14-7017

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/16/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ERIC ARTHUR WALTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:94-cr-00021-FPS-JSK-1)

Submitted:

November 26, 2014

Decided:

December 16, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7017

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/16/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Eric Arthur Walton appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Walton’s
motion seeking relief from his criminal judgment pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012),

or

in

the

alternative,

for

a

audita querela pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012).
appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying

his

writ

of

He also

post-judgment

motion for correction of clerical error.
Having

reviewed

the

record,

we

find

no

reversible

error in the portion of the court’s order denying a writ of
audita querela.

See United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 495

(9th Cir. 2010); Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d
Cir. 2009).

Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the

denial of relief from the court’s judgment under Fed. R. Crim.
P. 36 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), as the purported clerical
errors identified by Walton have no substantive impact on the
court’s judgment and are therefore harmless.

See Pfizer Inc. v.

Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124, 129 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating standard of
review).

We therefore affirm the district court’s orders on

these issues.
The portion of the district court’s order dismissing
Walton’s motion in part as an unauthorized, successive § 2255
motion
issues

is
a

not

appealable

certificate

unless
of

a

circuit

appealability.
2

justice
28

or

judge
U.S.C.

Appeal: 14-7017

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/16/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688
(4th Cir. 2004) (holding that certificate of appealability is
required

to

appeal

from

dismissal

unauthorized and successive).

of

habeas

petition

as

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Walton has not made the requisite showing.

We

therefore

of

deny

Walton’s

motion

for

a

certificate

appealability and dismiss the appeal of this issue.
Finally,
appellate

we

pleadings

construe
as

successive § 2255 motion.

an

Walton’s

application

notice
to

file

of
a

appeal
second

and
or

See United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization

3

Appeal: 14-7017

to

Doc: 7

file

a

Filed: 12/16/2014

successive

§ 2255

Pg: 4 of 4

motion,

a

prisoner

must

assert

claims based on either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2255(h)

(2012).

either of these criteria.

Walton’s

claims

do

not

satisfy

Therefore, we deny authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion.
We

affirm

the

district

dismiss the appeal in part.

court’s

orders

in

part

and

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4