US v. Walter Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999476618-2], updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00709-HMH-1,8:14-cv-03430-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999537392]. Mailed to: Walter Wood. [14-7592]

Appeal: 14-7592

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER RALPH WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:12-cr-00709-HMH-1; 8:14-cv-03430-HMH)

Submitted:

February 24, 2015

Decided:

March 2, 2015

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Ralph Wood, Appellant Pro Se.
Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7592

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Walter Ralph Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
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

U.S.

that

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Wood has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Wood’s

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-7592

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 03/02/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3