Court Opinion

ID: 1038557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-28 20:10:49.597152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:14.024258
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 13-6791

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

TRAVIS SYNTELL BARNES,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00010-FL-1; 5:11-cv-00583-FL)

Submitted:   August 21, 2013                 Decided:   August 28, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Syntell Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.     Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United States Attorney,   Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Travis       Syntell   Barnes        seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    accepting      the      recommendation           of   the    magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) motion.          The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice    or    judge    issues   a     certificate       of    appealability.           28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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).                      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 Barnes 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3