United States v. Jacoby Walker ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6276
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JACOBY WALKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-ELH-9; 1:20-cv-00776-ELH)
    Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: June 29, 2021
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jacoby Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jacoby Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s
    assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v.
    Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    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 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6276

Filed Date: 6/29/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2021