US v. Eric Walton
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:94-cr-00021-FPS-JES-1,5:15-cv-00052-FPS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999720956].. [15-7547]
Appeal: 15-7547
Doc: 5
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7547
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-JES-1; 5:15-cv00052-FPS)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7547
Doc: 5
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Eric Arthur Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and
unauthorized. *
justice
or
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
judge
issues
a
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of
appealability.
28
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
*
Because Walton’s motion was an unauthorized, successive
§ 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
consider the merits of his claims. United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003).
2
Appeal: 15-7547
Doc: 5
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Walton has not made the requisite showing.
a
certificate
dispense
of
with
contentions
are
appealability
oral
argument
adequately
and
dismiss
because
presented
Accordingly, we deny
in
the
the
the
appeal.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this 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?