US v. Matthew Barrentine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00953-RBH-1,4:12-cv-00797-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999245634]. Mailed to: Matthew Barrentine. [13-6979]

Appeal: 13-6979

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/22/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW EUGENE BARRENTINE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00953-RBH-1; 4:12-cv-00797-RBH)

Submitted:

November 19, 2013

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided: November 22, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Eugene Barrentine, Appellant Pro Se.
Carrie Fisher
Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6979

Doc: 9

Filed: 11/22/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Matthew Eugene Barrentine seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2013)

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.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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

Barrentine

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

2

Appeal: 13-6979

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 11/22/2013

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3