Court Opinion

ID: 9959944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 21:00:33.702376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.448723
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6522      Doc: 12         Filed: 04/11/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6522

        SHERMAN BROWN,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        BERNARD W. BOOKER,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00576-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: January 29, 2024                                       Decided: April 11, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Donald P. Salzman, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP,
        Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6522         Doc: 12      Filed: 04/11/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sherman Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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).

               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 this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

               *
                 Brown failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s independent determination
        that his fiber analysis due process claim was barred by the one-year limitations period in
        28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Thus, he forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district
        court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                     2