Case Name: Austin Kerr BRAME, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendell W. PIXLEY, Warden, St. Brides Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-18
Citations: 478 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 12-7094
Parties: Austin Kerr BRAME, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendell W. PIXLEY, Warden, St. Brides Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
Austin Kerr BRAME, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wendell W. PIXLEY, Warden, St. Brides Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7094.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2012.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2012.
Austin Kerr Brame, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Austin Kerr Brame seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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 ap-pealability. 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 Brame 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.