United States of America v. Eric Scott Barker, a/k/a Skateboard, a/k/a Skate

UNPUBLISHED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; 1:19-
cv-00134-IMK)
Submitted: February 24, 2023 Decided: April 4, 2023

-- 1 of 4 --

2
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Affirmed in part (No. 22-6973) and dismissed in part (No. 22-6794) by unpublished per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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 4 --

3
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 of 4 --

4
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 of 4 --