Barney Dunlap v. David Mitchell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999811177-2], denying Motion for other relief [999795334-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999795496-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999795495-2]; denying Motion to amend/correct [999795492-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999795490-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999795470-2] Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00139-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999940881]. Mailed to: B Dunlap. [16-6521]

Appeal: 16-6521

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6521

BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID
MITCHELL,
Institution,

Superintendent,

Lanesboro

Correctional

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00139-FDW)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barney Adrian Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6521

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Barney Adrian Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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
Dunlap has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

Dunlap’s motions to expand

the record, to place the case in abeyance, to amend or correct
2

Appeal: 16-6521

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

the petition, to appoint counsel, for a transcript at Government
expense, and for an evidentiary hearing are denied.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3