US v. Ronald Bernard Walker
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999932630-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999918935-2] Originating case number: 3:04-cr-00074-FDW-CH-1,3:16-cv-00451-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Walker. [16-7076]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RONALD BERNARD WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge.
February 28, 2017
March 9, 2017
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Bernard Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Greene, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Ronald Bernard Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Walker has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
Pg: 3 of 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?