US v. Gregory Walker, No. 11-6660 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6660 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY L. WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00076-BR-1; 7:10-cv-00176-BR) Submitted: October 26, 2012 Decided: November 1, 2012 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory L. Walker appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. Walker raised four claims in the district court but his sole issue on appeal is whether the district court should have retroactively applied the Supreme Court s reasoning in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), to analyze the validity of his predicate career offender enhancement. offenses relied upon for his We have recently determined that Carachuri claims may not be raised retroactively in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm. Because we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and Walker s informal brief does not challenge Walker the has remainder forfeited of the appellate district review decided in the district court s order. court s of the disposition, other issues 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. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.