Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07547/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07547-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Eric Arthur Walton
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC ARTHUR WALTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:94-cr-00021-FPS-JES-1; 5:15-cv00052-FPS)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Arthur Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7547 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Arthur Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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

unauthorized.* 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. 

 * Because Walton’s motion was an unauthorized, successive 

§ 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of his claims. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003).

Appeal: 15-7547 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Walton 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7547 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3