# Brown v. Virginia Department of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 9, 2011 · 415 F. App'x 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/206367

## Case

- **Full name:** Timothy Eugene BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 9, 2011
- **Citations:** 415 F. App'x 489
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Traxler, King, Diaz
- **Cited by:** 1 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/206367

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7728

TIMOTHY EUGENE BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00773-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Timothy Eugene Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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) (2006). 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

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/206367. Public record. Not legal advice.