Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Faye BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin William KELLER, Jr.; Kenneth Royster, Respondents-Appellees; Alford Jones, Petitioner—Appellant. v. Alvin William Keller, Jr.; Bobby Harless, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 11-7216, 11-7217.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 21, 2012.
    Decided: June 25, 2012.
    
      Vernetta Rinoa Alston, Center for Death Penalty Litigation, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on their petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp.2011). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Appellants have not made the requisite showing. The Appellants’ claims were recently rejected by this court in Waddell v. Dep’t of Corr., 680 F.3d 384 (4th Cir.2012). Accordingly, we deny a Appellants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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.