Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Director Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) Kevin Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear an appeal of a § 2254 denial unless it grants a certificate of appealability. 3) The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, and therefore dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-12-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6651

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Kevin Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear an appeal of a § 2254 denial unless it grants a certificate of appealability. 3) The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, and therefore dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Brown v. Director Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Kevin Brown sought to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear an appeal of a § 2254 denial unless it grants a certificate of appealability. 3) The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, and therefore dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-6651

    KEVIN E. BROWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Wallens
    Ridge State Prison,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:06-cv-00579-gec)

    Submitted:

    October 31, 2007

    Decided:

    December 13, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kevin E. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin E. Brown seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The order

    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is


    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown 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 before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like