Douglas W. Brewer v. DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7564
DOUGLAS W. BREWER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-8479
DOUGLAS W. BREWER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID B. EVERRET, Warden, Sussex II State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00510-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: March 20, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas W. Brewer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Douglas W. Brewer, a
Virginia prisoner, 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) (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). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by showing that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Brewer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We also
deny Brewer’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

-- 3 of 3 --