Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07166/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Anthony Barnes
Appellant
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7166

MARK ANTHONY BARNES,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00420-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: March 9, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7166 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/09/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Anthony Barnes seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. This order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 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.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). When 

a district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating “that reasonable 

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). When a district court denies relief 

on procedural grounds, a prisoner must demonstrate that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional

right. Id. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Barnes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Barnes’s “motion 

to excuse time bar” and dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7166 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/09/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7166 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/09/2015 Pg: 3 of 3