Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06616/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06616-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Arthur Lee Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR LEE WALKER, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Florida,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief 

District Judge. (3:13-cr-00011-GMG-RWT-1; 3:14-cv-00077-GMG-RWT; 

3:13-cr-00023-GMG-RWT-2; 3:14-cv-00078-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; 

Jarod James Douglas, Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6616 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6616 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6616 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3