Marcus Barley v. Eric Wilson , 549 F. App'x 189 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7656
MARCUS DORAN BARLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC WILSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01111-JCC-IDD)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Doran Barley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Doran Barley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 &
Supp. 2013) petition as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
motion and dismissing it for failure to first obtain
authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255
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). 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 Barley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3