Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07076/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ronald Bernard Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD BERNARD WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00074-FDW-CH-1; 3:16-cv-00451-

FDW)

Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Bernard Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Freeman 

Greene, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7076 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Bernard Walker 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 

Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We deny as moot Walker’s motion to expedite 

decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-7076 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7076 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/09/2017 Pg: 3 of 3