United States v. Keith Barnett ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6830 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH ANTONIO BARNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00200-MOC-SCR-1; 3:24-cv-
00227-MOC)
Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Antonio Barnett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6830 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Keith Antonio Barnett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 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 Barnett 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2