Court Opinion

ID: 4690755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-27 19:02:48.858906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:00.842369
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7590

LATRON DUPREE BROWN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00497-EKD-JCH)

Submitted: May 25, 2021                                           Decided: May 27, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latron Dupree Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Latron Dupree Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       Limiting our independent review of the record to the issues raised in Brown’s

informal brief, we conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir.

R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal

brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues

preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

                                             2
      We dispense with oral 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

                                          3