US v. Arthur Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1, 3:14-cv-00077-GMG-RWT, 3:13-cr-00023-GMG-RWT-2, 3:14-cv-00078-GMG-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999929887]. Mailed to: Arthur Lee Walker. [16-6616]

Appeal: 16-6616

Doc: 5

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR LEE WALKER, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Florida,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1; 3:14-cv-00077-GMG-RWT;
3:13-cr-00023-GMG-RWT-2; 3:14-cv-00078-GMG-RWT)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
Jarod James Douglas, Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6616

Doc: 5

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003). 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.
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. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 16-6616

Doc: 5

adequately

Filed: 09/15/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3