US v. Tony Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1,2:98-cv-01415-JCC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999721055]. Mailed to: Tony Alforenzo Walker. [15-7397]

Appeal: 15-7397

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY ALFORENZO WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1; 2:98-cv-01415-JCC)

Submitted:

December 15, 2015

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 18, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7397

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

certificate

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Walker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Walker’s

motion

for

reconsideration.

We

dispense

We deny

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 15-7397

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3