United States of America v. Joestilles Demarco Brooks, a/k/a Rock

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6528
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-6738
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOESTILLES DEMARCO BROOKS, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00092-1; 3:05-cv-00163)
Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: November 3, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joestilles DeMarco Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong,
III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Joestilles DeMarco
Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing
Brooks’ petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) and
denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
These orders are not appealable absent a certificate
of appealability issued by the district court or a circuit
judge. 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 Brooks has not made the requisite showing as to either
order. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and
dismiss these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --