UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7216
FAYE BROWN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; KENNETH ROYSTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 11-7217
ALFORD JONES,
Petitioner – Appellant.
v.
ALVIN WILLIAM KELLER, JR.; BOBBY HARLESS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-hc-02171-D; 5:11-hc-02170-D)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vernetta Rinoa Alston, CENTER FOR DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION,
Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on their petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). 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 Appellants have not made the requisite showing. The
Appellants’ claims were recently rejected by this court
in Waddell v. Dep’t of Corr., ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-7234, 2012 WL
1890394 (4th Cir. May 25, 2012). Accordingly, we deny a
3
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny
Appellants’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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
4