Opinion

Quintin Brown v. Harold Clarke

  • 541 F. App'x 289
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 3, 2013
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Niemeyer, Shedd, Floyd
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.0%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7242

QUINTIN IRVING BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (2:12-cv-00654-HCM-LRL)

Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quintin Irving Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Quintin Irving Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2006) 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) (2006). 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). 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

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this 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.