Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06521/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6521

BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00139-FDW)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barney Adrian Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6521 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Barney Adrian Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (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 (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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Dunlap has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. Dunlap’s motions to expand 

the record, to place the case in abeyance, to amend or correct 

Appeal: 16-6521 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the petition, to appoint counsel, for a transcript at Government 

expense, and for an evidentiary hearing are denied. 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6521 Doc: 24 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3