United States v. Walter Brooks , 703 F. App'x 191 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6959
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00310-JAG-1; 3:17-cv-00333-
JAG)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as 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 Brooks has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks’ motion for appointment of
counsel, 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