Opinion

Emanuel Brown v. Eric Wilson

  • 474 F. App'x 115
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jun 6, 2012
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
King, Duncan, Diaz
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.8%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6565

EMANUEL BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00232-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emanuel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011)

petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

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 motion 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

2

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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.