Opinion
No. 20-6692
09-25-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DEON WALKER, Defendant - Appellant.
Antonio Deon Walker, Appellant Pro Se. David McLean Coleman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00079-RGD-FBS-1; 4:19-cv-00116-RGD) Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Deon Walker, Appellant Pro Se. David McLean Coleman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Antonio Deon Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Walker's informal opening and supplemental briefs, we conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this 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.
Walker is free, of course, to seek authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). --------
DISMISSED