US v. Cedric Barrett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:03-cr-00087-H-1,4:12-cv-00030-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998907973]. Mailed to: Cedric Barrett. [12-6818]

Appeal: 12-6818

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/02/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CEDRIC TYRONE BARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00087-H-1; 4:12-cv-00030-H)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Tyrone Barrett, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimberly Ann Moore,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6818

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/02/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Tyrone

seeks

to

appeal

untimely

his

28

PER CURIAM:
Cedric
court’s

order

Barrett

dismissing

(West Supp. 2012) motion.

as

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§

2255

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.”
(2006).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

reasonable

jurists

would

assessment

of

constitutional

wrong.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

the

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

claims

district
is

that

court’s

debatable

or

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 Barrett has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 12-6818

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/02/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3