The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6271
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PATRICE E. LEWIS, Judge; BEN C. CLYBURN, Chief Judge;
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-03349-BEL)
Submitted: April 22, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reopen after the district
court dismissed his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010)
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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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