US v. Eric Barker, No. 22-6973 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6973 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate, Defendant - Appellant. No. 22-6974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC SCOTT BARKER, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00031-IMK-MJA-1; 1:19cv-00134-IMK) Submitted: February 24, 2023 Decided: April 4, 2023 Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part (No. 22-6973) and dismissed in part (No. 22-6794) by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Scott Barker, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah Wagner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Eric Scott Barker appeals the district court’s memorandum opinion and order denying Barker’s motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. We have reviewed the record and Barker’s contentions on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barker’s motion for compassionate release. See United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm in part the district court’s order. The part of the district court’s order denying relief under § 2255 is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barker has not made the requisite showing. 3 Accordingly, we affirm in part, and because we deny a certificate of appealability, we dismiss in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
