UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES EARL WALTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cr-00017-F-1; 2:11-cv-00069-F)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Earl Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Earl Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 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 Walton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
while we grant Walton’s motion for leave to supplement his
informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3