Douglas Brewer v. David Everret, No. 08-7564 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7564 DOUGLAS W. BREWER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. No. 08-8479 DOUGLAS W. BREWER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00510-CMH-JFA) Submitted: March 20, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas W. Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Douglas W. Brewer, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § by district 2253(c)(2) showing court s (2006). A prisoner that reasonable assessment of jurists his satisfies would this find constitutional the claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record Brewer has not made the requisite showing. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. deny Brewer s motion for appointment of counsel. We also We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.