Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07362/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07362-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Brooks
Appellant
Eric D. Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7362

CHARLES BROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:12-cv-00853-HEH)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7362 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Brooks, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks 

to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. 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) (2012); Wilson v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 652 F.3d 348, 351-52 (3d Cir. 2011); Madley 

v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner must demonstrate 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 (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 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Brooks 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 

Appeal: 14-7362 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-7362 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3