Christopher Quincer v. Peter Meleti

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999252606-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01140-CMH-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999339905]. Mailed to: Christopher Quincer, Marcel H. Janoschka. [13-7792]

Appeal: 13-7792

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7792

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:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Quincer, Appellant Pro Se.
Wade Travis Anderson,
Kevin Osborne Barnard, Marcel H. Janoschka, John Chadwick
Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7792

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Andre S. W. Quincer seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

justice

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
2

Appeal: 13-7792

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/21/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

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

DISMISSED

3