Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07799/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07799-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7799

RONALD BROUNT, a/k/a Ronald Brunt,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General of State of Maryland,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01465-PWG)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Brount, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7799 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Brount seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brount 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7799 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2