# Faye Brown v. Alvin Keller, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 25, 2012 · 474 F. App'x 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/803026

## Case

- **Full name:** Faye BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin William KELLER, Jr.; Kenneth Royster, Respondents-Appellees; Alford Jones, Petitioner—Appellant. v. Alvin William Keller, Jr.; Bobby Harless, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 25, 2012
- **Citations:** 474 F. App'x 258
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Shedd, Davis
- **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/803026

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7216

FAYE BROWN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; KENNETH ROYSTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 11-7217

ALFORD JONES,

Petitioner – Appellant.

v.

ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; BOBBY HARLESS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-hc-02171-D; 5:11-hc-02170-D)

Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernetta Rinoa Alston, CENTER FOR DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION,
Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on their petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 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 Appellants have not made the requisite showing. The

Appellants’ claims were recently rejected by this court

in Waddell v. Dep’t of Corr., ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-7234, 2012 WL

1890394 (4th Cir. May 25, 2012). Accordingly, we deny a

3
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny

Appellants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/803026. Public record. Not legal advice.