Court Opinion

ID: 799568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-05-09 19:19:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:49.902092
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7678

AGNES BERNICE HOLBROOK,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00464-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:   April 25, 2012                    Decided:   May 9, 2012

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Agnes Bernice Holbrook, Appellant Pro Se.       Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Agnes Bernice Holbrook seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    denying       relief   on    her   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)

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) (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    (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 Holbrook 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

                                           2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3