Court Opinion

ID: 2647032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-21 01:01:12.242945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:28.768868
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GREGORY L. WALKER,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.    W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00076-BR-1)

Submitted:   December 17, 2013            Decided:   December 20, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.      Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Gregory L. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) the court's June 13, 2013 order denying, as successive,

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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) (2006).

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) (2006).                    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

                                              2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3