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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999720956].. [15-7547]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7547 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC ARTHUR WALTON, Defendant - Appellant.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 and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 18, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?