US v. Michael Walcott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999864214-2] Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00289-D-1, 5:15-cv-00058-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999952336]. [16-6735]

Appeal: 16-6735

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY WALCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00289-D-1; 5:15-cv-00058-D)

Submitted:

October 18, 2016

Decided:

October 21, 2016

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Michael Megaro, APPEALS LAW GROUP, Orlando, Florida, for
Appellant. Yolanda Dee McCray Jones, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6735

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Walcott seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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
Walcott 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
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2