United States v. Walker , 261 F. App'x 575 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7594
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVEY WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (3:97-cr-00022-9)
Submitted: December 14, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Brady Banzhoff, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief in part on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The
order is 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).
Walker has filed a motion for a certificate of
appealability on the issue of whether trial counsel labored under
an actual conflict of interest in violation of his Sixth Amendment
rights. Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude
that Walker has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
We note that the district court granted § 2255 relief in
part; the Government’s appeal of that decision in No. 06-7582
remains pending before the court.
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -