Christopher Quincer v. Pete Meleti

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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