The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6226
RAY W. BROWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EARL BARKSDALE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01594-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray W. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray W. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. 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 presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2