Anthony Barnhill v. State of North Carolina, No. 14-6573 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6573 ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent -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. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Junior Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Anthony Junior Barnhill seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying identical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 judge circuit justice appealability. or issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
