Court Opinion

ID: 1087092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-25 18:37:52.682697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:16.272922
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7212

GEORGE H. BRISBANE, SR.,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02001-RDB)

Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Brisbane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            George H. Brisbane, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as

a successive but unauthorized motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2013) and dismissing it without prejudice for lack

of jurisdiction.         The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice    or    judge   issues    a   certificate         of   appealability.      28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Brisbane 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3