United States v. Walker , 284 F. App'x 46 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RONALD E. WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief
District Judge. (2:01-cr-00103; 2:03-2193)
Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 22, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald E. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Lou Haines, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia; Michael Lee
Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Samuel David Marsh,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his
motion to amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -