Charles Barton, Jr. v. Warden Coffeewood Correctional, No. 09-7583 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7583 CHARLES R. BARTON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00304-sgw-mfu) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. DUNCAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, April 7, 2010 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles R. Barton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles R. Barton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Barton s motion to appoint counsel. deny a We also We dispense with 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 2

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.