United States v. Kevin Walker

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kevin Lamont Walker seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 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