Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barefoot, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Charles Robert Barefoot Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Barefoot did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Barefoot failed to demonstrate his constitutional claims were debatable or that procedural rulings of the district court were debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7589

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Charles Robert Barefoot Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Barefoot did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Barefoot failed to demonstrate his constitutional claims were debatable or that procedural rulings of the district court were debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Barefoot, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Charles Robert Barefoot Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that Barefoot did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Barefoot failed to demonstrate his constitutional claims were debatable or that procedural rulings of the district court were debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7589

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CR-02-219; CA-04-311)

    Submitted:

    February 24, 2005

    Decided:

    March 9, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,


    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Robert

    Barefoot,

    Jr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal the

    district courts order denying relief on his motion filed under 28


    U.S.C. 2255 (2000).

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.


    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Barefoot has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.

    We deny Barefoots motion for oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like