Opinion

Brown v. Anderson

  • 61 F. App'x 76
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Mar 25, 2003
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Williams, Traxler, Hamilton
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7572

JEFFREY ALLEN BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICKY ANDERSON, Superintendent, Foothills

Correctional Institution; THEODIS BECK,

Secretary, NC Department of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-127-BO)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Allen Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Allen Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue from claims addressed

by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional rights.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue

unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not satisfied

either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL

431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

2

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.