Curtis Brooks v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-01393-LMB-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998694152]. Mailed to: Curtis Ray Brooks. [11-6799]

Appeal: 11-6799

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/05/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6799

CURTIS RAY BROOKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; D. B. EVERETT,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10—cv-01393-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Ray Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6799

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/05/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Curtis Ray Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

successive.

The

his

28

order

U.S.C.
is

not

§ 2254

(2006)

unless

as

a

circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

appealable

petition

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) (2006).

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,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 11-6799

before

Document: 12

the

court

Date Filed: 10/05/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3