Christopher Quincer v. Pete Meleti


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999045473-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999076274-2]; denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999138675-2], denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999138276-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01140-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999153221]. Mailed to: Christopher Quincer. [13-6239]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-6239 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/18/2013 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6239 CHRISTOPHER ANDRE S.W. QUINCER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PETE MELETIS, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-01140-CMH-IDD) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Travis Anderson, Kevin Osborne Barnard, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-6239 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/18/2013 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer 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 issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). of appealability. 28 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Quincer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. motion and We deny as moot Quincer’s Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) supplemental motion 2 for injunctive relief. We Appeal: 13-6239 Doc: 18 dispense with contentions are Filed: 07/18/2013 oral argument adequately Pg: 3 of 3 because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?