Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0314-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Edmund BARNARD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6654, No. 17-6655
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 31, 2017
    Decided: November 9, 2017
    
      Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Uzo Enyinnaya Asonye, Christopher John Catizone, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Phillip Edmund Barnard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion for recusal and on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. With respect to the district court’s order denying relief on Barnard’s motion for recusal, we have re'viewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. See United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the order in No. 17-6654 for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Barnard, No. 1:15-cr-00060-LMB-1, 2017 WL 1393055 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2017).

Turning to Barnard’s appeal of the district court’s order denying relief on his § 2255 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 ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have-independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, in No. 17-6655, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisiqnal process.

No. 17-6654—AFFIRMED

No. 17-6655—DISMISSED