Anthony Junior Barnhill v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6573
ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-6575
ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02130-F; 5:12-hc-02153-F)
Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Junior Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Anthony Junior Barnhill
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying identical
post-judgment motions he filed in the underlying 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) proceedings. 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 Barnhill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny certificates of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 3 of 4 --

4
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --