Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07594/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ivey Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-7594 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*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 -

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

Appeal: 06-7594 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 06-7594 Doc: 47 Filed: 01/11/2008 Pg: 3 of 3