Court Opinion

ID: 2740745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-08 19:01:16.666581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:13.033932
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6800

AARON JAMES BRENNAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

J. WOODSON, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00486-LO-TRJ)

Submitted:   September 18, 2014            Decided:    October 8, 2014

Before KING and    FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron James Brennan, Appellant Pro Se.      Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Aaron      James     Brennan       seeks   to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues       a    certificate      of   appealability.              28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).             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) (2012).                  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 Brennan has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly,

we deny Brennan’s motion for a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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