Mary King v. Tammy Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00405-gec-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998576850] Mailed to: Mary E. King. [11-6098]

Appeal: 11-6098

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/27/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6098

MARY E. KING,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
TAMMY BROWN, Warden, VCCW,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00405-gec-mfu)

Submitted:

April 21, 2011

Decided:

April 27, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary E. King, Appellant Pro Se.
Mark R. Davis,
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Assistant

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6098

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/27/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mary

E.

King

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

See

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

By failing to challenge on appeal the basis

for the district court’s rejection of her claim, we conclude
that King has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 11-6098

Document: 10

Date Filed: 04/27/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3