# Quintin Brown v. Harold Clarke

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 3, 2013 · 541 F. App'x 289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1043128

## Case

- **Full name:** Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 3, 2013
- **Citations:** 541 F. App'x 289
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Shedd, Floyd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1043128

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1043128. Public record. Not legal advice.