UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6521
BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional
Institution,
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 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
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