Court Opinion

ID: 9385107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 21:01:06.039717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.752768
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6973     Doc: 11         Filed: 04/04/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6973

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 22-6974

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
        at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00031-IMK-MJA-1; 1:19-
        cv-00134-IMK)

        Submitted: February 24, 2023                                     Decided: April 4, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6973      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/04/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part (No. 22-6973) and dismissed in part (No. 22-6794) by unpublished per
        curiam opinion.

        Eric Scott Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney,
        Sarah Wagner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6973      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/04/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, Eric Scott Barker appeals the district court’s

        memorandum opinion and order denying Barker’s motions for compassionate release

        under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm in part and

        dismiss in part.

               We have reviewed the record and Barker’s contentions on appeal and conclude that

        the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barker’s motion for compassionate

        release. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard

        of review). Accordingly, we affirm in part the district court’s order.

               The part of the district court’s order denying relief under § 2255 is not appealable

        unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court

        denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record

        and conclude that Barker has not made the requisite showing.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6973         Doc: 11     Filed: 04/04/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              Accordingly, we affirm in part, and because we deny a certificate of appealability,

        we dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                    AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4