United States v. Walters

112 F. App'x 296
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Walters. Read the opinion of the Court — 48 F. App'x 909
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 8, 2004·No. 04-6995·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Patrick Walters appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration, or in the alternative, for a certificate of appealability. Walters also moves in this Court for a certificate of appealability. 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) (2000). A habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Walters has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and deny Walters’ motion for a certificate of appealability. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Walters, 112 F. App'x 296 (4th Cir. 2004).

112 F. App'x 296 (United States v. Walters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)