Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07280/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07280-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Troy Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7280

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TROY WALKER, a/k/a Caveman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cr-00614-PJM-1; 8:14-cv-02366-PJM)

Submitted: January 19, 2016 Decided: February 8, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. LisaMarie Freitas, Kristi Noel 

O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7280 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy 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 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-7280 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7280 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3