King v. Brown , 425 F. App'x 260 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6098
    MARY E. KING,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    TAMMY BROWN, Warden, VCCW,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:10-cv-00405-gec-mfu)
    Submitted:   April 21, 2011                 Decided:   April 27, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mary E. King, Appellant Pro Se.        Mark R. Davis,      Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mary   E.    King   seeks      to   appeal    the   district       court’s
    order denying relief on her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues     a     certificate        of    appealability.            See     
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (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
    .             By failing to challenge on appeal the basis
    for the district court’s rejection of her claim, we conclude
    that King has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                             We
    dispense       with      oral    argument     because       the    facts    and     legal
    2
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6098

Citation Numbers: 425 F. App'x 260

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Duncan

Filed Date: 4/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024