US v. Tony Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1, 2:15-cv-00564-AWA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999902286]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6681]

Appeal: 16-6681

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY ALFORENZO WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1; 2:15-cv-00564-AWA)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Randy Carl Stoker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6681

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

successive.
justice

The

or

28 U.S.C.

his
order

judge

28
is

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

U.S.C.
not
a

§ 2255

(2012)

appealable

certificate

(2012).

motion

unless
of

A

a

as

circuit

appealability.
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

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-6681

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/02/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3