Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marshall Lee Brown, Jr. v. Susan White, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marshall Lee Brown Jr.'s appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court concluded that Brown failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's procedural ruling debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the court denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-07-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6343

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marshall Lee Brown Jr.'s appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court concluded that Brown failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's procedural ruling debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the court denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Marshall Lee Brown, Jr. v. Susan White, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marshall Lee Brown Jr.'s appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court concluded that Brown failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's procedural ruling debatable or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. As a result, the court denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6343

    MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    SUSAN
    WHITE,
    Institution,

    Superintendent,

    Alexander

    Correctional

    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Frank D. Whitney,
    Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00009-FDW)

    Submitted:

    July 21, 2015

    Decided:

    July 23, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2012).

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    28

    When the district court denies relief

    on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating


    that reasonable jurists would find that the district courts
    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

    constitutional right.

    debatable

    claim

    of

    the

    denial

    of

    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

    You might also like