Christopher Andre S.w. Quincer v. PETE MELETIS, Superintendent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6239
CHRISTOPHER ANDRE S.W. QUINCER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PETE MELETIS, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01140-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Travis
Anderson, Kevin Osborne Barnard, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Andre S.W. Quincer 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 Quincer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss
the appeal. We deny as moot Quincer’s Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)
motion and supplemental motion for injunctive relief. We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --