Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Bodison, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    Reginald Brown appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Brown did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find debatable the district court's assessment that his constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7083

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Reginald Brown appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Brown did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find debatable the district court's assessment that his constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Brown v. Bodison, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Reginald Brown appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and concluded that Brown did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find debatable the district court's assessment that his constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-7083

    REGINALD BROWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MCKITHER BODISON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (4:09-cv-01755-PMD)

    Submitted:

    December 7, 2010

    Decided:

    December 23, 2010

    Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Reginald Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


    Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Brown seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2006).

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

    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).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district
    debatable

    merits,
    that

    courts
    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    the

    484-85.

    conclude

    We

    that

    have

    Brown

    independently
    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    record

    requisite

    and

    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

    You might also like