Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Arthur WALTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7162.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 22, 2002.
    Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges,
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Eric Arthur Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny § 2255 relief, and the court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. We conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Walton has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Walton, Nos. CR-96-41; CA-00-191-5 (N.D.W. Va. June 28, 2002; July 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c) (2000). We grant Walton’s motion for judicial notice and 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. 
      
       Although Walton did not file a notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability, we have jurisdiction to review the order because his timely filed informal brief is the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).