Court Opinion

ID: 4569926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-25 19:01:28.981568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:27:58.601156
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6692

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ANTONIO DEON WALKER,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00079-RGD-FBS-1;
4:19-cv-00116-RGD)

Submitted: September 22, 2020                               Decided: September 25, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Deon Walker, Appellant Pro Se. David McLean Coleman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Antonio Deon Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here,

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)).

       Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Walker’s informal opening

and supplemental briefs, we conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss this 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

       *
       Walker is free, of course, to seek authorization from this court to file a successive
§ 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h).

                                             2