Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06772/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06772-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barkley Gardner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARKLEY GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-8; 4:16-cv-00069-H)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6772 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from 

the criminal judgment as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and denying it for lack of authorization and denying his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion for lack of authorization. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(h). 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 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 motion 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

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal: 16-6772 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Additionally, we construe Gardner’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive 

§ 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that no reasonable factfinder would have found the 

movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that 

was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Gardner’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

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: 16-6772 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3