Grayling Brown-El v. Ron Brown , 460 F. App'x 212 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7416
    GRAYLING BROWN-EL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RON BROWN, Trooper,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:11-cv-01071-TSE-TCB)
    Submitted:   December 20, 2011            Decided:   December 23, 2011
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Grayling Brown-El, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Grayling Brown-El seeks to appeal 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.            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 Brown-El 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7416

Citation Numbers: 460 F. App'x 212

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Diaz

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024