US v. Adam Joseph Barfield

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00079-F-3,5:16-cv-00830-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000180900]. Mailed to: Adam Joseph Barfield; Jennifer E. Wells. [17-6403]

Appeal: 17-6403

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JOSEPH BARFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cr-00079-F-3; 5:16-cv-00830-F)

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: October 26, 2017

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adam Joseph Barfield, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Donald Russell
Pender, Stephen Aubrey West, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6403

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Adam Joseph Barfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 Barfield 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 before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2