Agnes Holbrook v. Warden , 472 F. App'x 161 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7678
    AGNES BERNICE HOLBROOK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
    Judge. (7:11-cv-00464-MFU-RSB)
    Submitted:   April 25, 2012                    Decided:   May 9, 2012
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Agnes Bernice Holbrook, Appellant Pro Se.       Richard Carson
    Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Agnes Bernice Holbrook seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order    denying       relief   on    her   
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
        (2006)
    petition.     The 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     “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 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 Holbrook 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7678

Citation Numbers: 472 F. App'x 161

Judges: Agee, Gregory, Per Curiam, Wynn

Filed Date: 5/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023