Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06681/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tony Alforenzo Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY ALFORENZO WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:93-cr-00084-AWA-1; 2:15-cv-00564-AWA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6681 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

successive. 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: 16-6681 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 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: 16-6681 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3