# Douglas Brown, Jr. v. Harold Clarke

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 13, 2014 · 571 F. App'x 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2673986

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Milton SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 13, 2014
- **Citations:** 571 F. App'x 196
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam
- **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/2673986

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6410

DOUGLAS MICHAEL BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VA Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00117-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: April 29, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Michael Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H.
Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Douglas Michael Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 his motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2673986. Public record. Not legal advice.