UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6059
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARKLEY GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-8)
Submitted: June 28, 2021 Decided: July 2, 2021
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barkley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying the accompanying motions. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir.
2015). 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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or
wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gardner has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Gardner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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