Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07921/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Barber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7921

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD BARBER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. 

(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-24; 8:08-cv-03003-RWT)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7921 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barber has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Barber’s 

motion for 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7921 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 2