Charles Barton, Jr. v. Warden Coffeewood Correctional

Filing 920100407

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7583 CHARLES R. BARTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00304-sgw-mfu) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: April 7, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles R. Barton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles R. Barton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Barton's motion to appoint counsel. We also We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?