United States v. Brown , 197 F. App'x 248 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYNELY BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:99-cr-00075; 1:03-cv-00111)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Waynely Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Waynely Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his Rule 60(b) motion challenging the denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for
clarification. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Brown has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to
place the case in abeyance. 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.*
*
To the extent Brown may be seeking authorization under 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C.
(continued...)
- 2 -
DISMISSED
*
(...continued)
§ 2255 (2000) motion in order to raise claims under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)and Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), we deny authorization.
- 3 -