# Quintin Brown v. Roy Cherry

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 26, 2012 · 472 F. App'x 250

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/798787

## Case

- **Full name:** Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Roy W. CHERRY, Superintendent; Howard W. Clarke, Director, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 26, 2012
- **Citations:** 472 F. App'x 250
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Shedd, Floyd
- **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/798787

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6218

QUINTIN IRVING BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROY W. CHERRY, Superintendent; HOWARD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:11-cv-00085-HCM-FBS)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quintin Irving Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Quintin Irving Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on

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)(A) (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

2
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 before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/798787. Public record. Not legal advice.