Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07592/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07592-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Walter Ralph Wood
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WALTER RALPH WOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:12-cr-00709-HMH-1; 8:14-cv-03430-HMH)

Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Ralph Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7592 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Ralph Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Wood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Wood’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7592 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7592 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3