Martin Barr, III v. Director of the Dept of Corr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00785-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999698571]. Mailed to: Martin Barr, III. [15-7122]

Appeal: 15-7122

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7122

MARTIN V. BARR, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00785-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

November 10, 2015

Decided:

November 13, 2015

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin V. Barr, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7122

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Martin V. Barr, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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
Barr has not made the requisite showing.
certificate

of

We dispense

with

appealability
oral

argument

2

and
because

Accordingly, we deny a
dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.
and

legal

Appeal: 15-7122

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 11/13/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3