Court Opinion

ID: 9387180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-15 21:00:19.722887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.013159
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6367      Doc: 37         Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-6367

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        THOMAS WALKER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00212-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-01858-CCB)

        Submitted: January 10, 2023                                       Decided: April 14, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6367       Doc: 37         Filed: 04/14/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-16 (2017). 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.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made

        the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Walker’s motions for appointment of

        counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We further deny the

        motion for abeyance as moot. 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

                                                      2