Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-23
Citations: 709 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 17-7545
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 220–220

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Alforenzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7545
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2018
Decided: January 23, 2018
Tony Alforenzo Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions ai'e not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Alforenzo Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 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