Case Name: Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden; Harold W. Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-26
Citations: 472 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 12-6225
Parties: Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden; Harold W. Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden; Harold W. Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-6225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 26, 2012.
Quintín Irving Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Quintín Irving Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 debata ble, 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.