Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07560/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Ray Barber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD RAY BARBER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

District Judge. (3:93-cr-00124-FDW; 3:00-cv-00198-FDW)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Ray Barber, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7560 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Ray Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

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 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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7560 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 2