UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6676
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; 3:14-cv-00092-JAG)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (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 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3