EDDRICCO L. BROWN-BEY, In Propria Persona Sui Juris Being restrained under the Ex… v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7599
EDDRICCO L. BROWN-BEY, In Propria Persona Sui Juris Being restrained under
the Ex Relatione: other,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; MILTON FLETCHER, Prosecutor; NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CORRECTIONS; ERIK A. HOOKS,
Secretary,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00247-MR)
Submitted: May 19, 2022 Decided: May 23, 2022
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eddricco Li’shaun Brown-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eddricco L. Brown-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his
“emergency petition” for a writ of habeas corpus as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and
dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. 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). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown-Bey has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We 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

-- 2 of 2 --