Brandon Pickens v. Brad Perritt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999915763-2]. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00277-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999990646]. Mailed to: Brandon Michael Pickens. [16-7102]

Appeal: 16-7102

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7102

BRANDON MICHAEL PICKENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRAD PERRITT,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00277-FDW)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brandon Michael Pickens, Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7102

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brandon
court’s

order

motions

for

Michael

Pickens

denying

his

seeks

Fed.

reconsideration

to

R.

of

appeal

Civ.

the

P.

the

59(e)

district

district
and

60(b)

court’s

order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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) (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
Pickens has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
2

Appeal: 16-7102

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/20/2016

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