United States v. Brown , 121 F. App'x 538 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7347
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHNNY MACK BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-94-27; CA-03-536-7)
    Submitted:   January 19, 2005          Decided:     February 16, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Johnny Mack Brown, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under
    28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from the final
    order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims
    addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his
    constitutional     claims    is   debatable       or    wrong     and    that   any
    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.     See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the
    requisite    showing.       Accordingly,     we    deny    a    certificate     of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.          We grant the motion to file
    a pro se supplemental brief and 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7347

Citation Numbers: 121 F. App'x 538

Filed Date: 2/16/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021