United States v. Troy Walker , 673 F. App'x 337 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY WALKER, a/k/a Caveman,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00614-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-02366-PJM)
Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Kristi Noel O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the denial of 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
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3