Court Opinion

ID: 1020632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:54:08.606466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:10.702505
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7019

JAMES EDWARD BROWN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee,

          and

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA PRISONS (DOC),

                                                       Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:04-cv-00961-GBL)

Submitted: September 26, 2006              Decided: October 3, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

                             - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

           James Edward Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                   The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.         28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).              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)    (2000).    A    prisoner    satisfies       this   standard    by

demonstrating     that   reasonable        jurists    would     find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.             Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude Brown has not made

the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.           We deny Brown’s motion for

a   transcript.      While   we    grant    Brown’s    motion    to    amend    his

preliminary brief, we find the issues raised in the brief are

frivolous.    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

                                     - 3 -