US v. James Walton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:07-cr-00017-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032092]. Mailed to: James Earl Walton FCI DANBURY FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Route 37 Danbury, CT 06811. [16-7438]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7438 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7438 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EARL WALTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cr-00017-F-1) Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017 Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Earl Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7438 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: James Earl Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as unauthorized and successive. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Walton has not made the requisite showing. Additionally, we note that Walton’s career offender sentence would not be affected by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because it was premised on two prior controlled substance convictions. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2 4B1.1(a), 4B1.2(b) See U.S. (2007). Appeal: 16-7438 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 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 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?