Ray Brown v. Earl Barksdale , 691 F. App'x 84 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6226

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 84

Judges: Motz, Thacker, Harris

Filed Date: 5/31/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024