UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 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
*
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
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 not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
although we grant Barnes’ motion to supplement his informal
brief, 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
3