US v. Eric Walton
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-7547]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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.
December 15, 2015
December 18, 2015
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
The order is not appealable unless a circuit
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
A certificate of appealability
will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
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).
Pg: 3 of 3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Walton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?