Douglas Brewer v. David Everret

Filing 920090331

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7564

DOUGLAS W. BREWER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-8479

DOUGLAS W. BREWER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00510-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:

March 20, 2009

Decided:

March 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas W. Brewer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Douglas W. Brewer, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) showing (2006). A prisoner jurists satisfies would find this the

standard district

by

that

reasonable of his

court's

assessment

constitutional

claims

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Brewer has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny We also

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. deny Brewer's motion for appointment of counsel.

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

3