# Craig Brown v. Harold Clarke

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 5, 2015 · 621 F. App'x 255

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3152544

## Case

- **Full name:** Craig William BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 5, 2015
- **Citations:** 621 F. App'x 255
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Keenan, Thacker
- **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/3152544

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6763

CRAIG WILLIAM BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01152-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before KING, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig William Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Craig William Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely 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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
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/3152544. Public record. Not legal advice.