US v. Winnie Barefoot, No. 14-7303 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7303 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WINNIE JOANNE BAREFOOT, a/k/a Winnie Jo Budzina, a/k/a Winnie JoAnne Conn, a/k/a Joanne Knopsnyder, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Morgan, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Barefoot Morgan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00460-MJG-1) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winnie Joanne Barefoot, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Winnie Joanne Barefoot seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, her motions for reconsideration, and her motion for a certificate of appealability. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 motion 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 Barefoot has not made the requisite showing. Barefoot’s challenge to the propriety of the district court’s ruling on the 2 issue of its own disqualification is meritless. United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1985). Her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because she essentially challenges only the district court’s credibility determination, which is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 208 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Barefoot’s appeal. legal before motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3