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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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