Adentrius Barley v. Larry Edmonds, No. 11-7312 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7312 ADENTRIUS MARIAH BARLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LARRY T. EDMONDS, Warden, Respondent -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
