UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7312
ADENTRIUS MARIAH BARLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY T. EDMONDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00385-JCT)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adentrius Mariah Barley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adentrius Mariah Barley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as
untimely filed and a subsequent order denying reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 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 Barley has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We further deny Barley’s motions to correct or
modify the record and to extend filing time for a corrected
informal opening brief. We dispense with oral argument because
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3