Brian Patton v. Harold Clarke

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6581

BRIAN WILLIAM PATTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00027-JRS)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian William Patton, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Brian William Patton 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. 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 Patton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. Patton’s motion for

handwriting analysis is denied. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED