From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brisbane v. Stewart

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 25, 2013
544 F. App'x 233 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-7212

10-25-2013

GEORGE H. BRISBANE, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART, Respondent - Appellee.

George H. Brisbane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:13-cv-02001-RDB) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George H. Brisbane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

George H. Brisbane, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as a successive but unauthorized motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) and dismissing it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Brisbane 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


Summaries of

Brisbane v. Stewart

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Oct 25, 2013
544 F. App'x 233 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Brisbane v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE H. BRISBANE, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TIMOTHY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 25, 2013

Citations

544 F. App'x 233 (4th Cir. 2013)