United States v. James Walton , 678 F. App'x 127 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. 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
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. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 4B1.1(a), 4B1.2(b) (2007).
2
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