US v. Stephen Walker, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00290-JKB-1,1:16-cv-01187-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000088039]. Mailed to: Stephen Walker, Jr. [16-7633]

Appeal: 16-7633

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN SYLVESTER WALKER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00290-JKB-1; 1:16-cv-01187-JKB)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Sylvester Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7633

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Stephen Sylvester Walker, Jr., 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2