Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06712/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Wayne Barber
Appellant
Randy Register
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6712

CALVIN WAYNE BARBER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RANDY REGISTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02016-FL)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Wayne Barber, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6712 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Wayne Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice 

as an unauthorized, successive petition. The order is 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-6712 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6712 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3