Court Opinion

ID: 4222598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-11-21 20:00:26.597804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:50.837056
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

WALTER BROOKS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00310-JAG-1; 3:17-cv-00333-
JAG)

Submitted: November 16, 2017                                Decided: November 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Walter Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive.

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 Brooks has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks’ motion for appointment of

counsel, deny 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

                                             2