Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Walker v. United States, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ivey Walker's appeal. The district court had dismissed Walker's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely and denied his motion for reconsideration. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Walker had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied Walker a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6763

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ivey Walker's appeal. The district court had dismissed Walker's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely and denied his motion for reconsideration. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Walker had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied Walker a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Walker v. United States, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ivey Walker's appeal. The district court had dismissed Walker's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely and denied his motion for reconsideration. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Walker had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. Therefore, the court denied Walker a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that oral arguments would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6763

    IVEY WALKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (3:10-cv-00166-RLV; 3:97-cr-00022-MR-9)

    Submitted:

    September 28, 2010

    Decided:

    October 5, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ivey

    Walker

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.


    2010) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
    orders are

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    issues a certificate of appealability.


    (2006).

    justice

    or

    The
    judge

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    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).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district
    debatable

    merits,
    that

    courts
    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    debatable

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at

    the

    484-85.

    conclude

    that

    We

    have

    Walker

    independently
    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    showing.

    Accordingly, we 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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like