Willis Brailey v. G. Hinkle

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6561 WILLIS ALFRED BRAILEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. G. M. HINKLE, Chief Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00167-JAG) Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willis Alfred Brailey, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willis courtâs order petition and pauperis. Alfred denying has Brailey relief filed an seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. application to the district § 2254 proceed (2006) in forma The district courtâs order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent âa substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.â (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that courtâs 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Brailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Braileyâs application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3