Kevin Brown v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00340-LO-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000044066]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6044]
Appeal: 17-6044
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/17/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6044
KEVIN BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge.
(1:16-cv-00340-LO-JFA)
Submitted:
March 14, 2017
Decided:
March 17, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-6044
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/17/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Brown seeks to appeal the district 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.
See
28
U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012).
A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28 U.S.C.
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 (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
Brown 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
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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?