US v. Willie Barne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to supplement [999680773-2] Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00064-JPB-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999750024]. Mailed to: Willie Barnes. [15-6931]

Appeal: 15-6931

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted:

December 16, 2015

Decided:

February 5, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Edward Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6931

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Willie Edward Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion seeking relief
from the court’s prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion * and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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
*

Barnes filed a self-styled motion to excuse the appeal
waiver provision incorporated in his plea agreement that sought
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) from the order denying the
§ 2255 motion.
We construe the motion to excuse as a Rule
60(b)(2) motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
203 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that it is the “long standing
practice” of this court to classify pro se pleadings from
prisoners like Barnes “according to their contents, without
regard to their captions”).

2

Appeal: 15-6931

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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
Barnes

has

although

we

not

made

grant

the

Barnes’

requisite
motion

to

showing.

Accordingly,

supplement

his

informal

brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3