US v. Arthur Walker


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6616 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6616 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARTHUR LEE WALKER, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?