United States v. Brooks , 331 F. App'x 195 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-8458
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    VERNON BROOKS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:06-cr-00162-RAJ-JEB-5; 2:08-cv-00410-RAJ)
    Submitted:    July 29, 2009                 Decided:   August 6, 2009
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vernon Brooks, Appellant       Pro Se.        Laura Marie Everhart,
    Assistant United  States       Attorney,    Norfolk,  Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Vernon       Brooks   seeks    to    appeal      the    district      court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2009)
    motion.        The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues       a     certificate      of    appealability.             
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (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).        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 that Brooks 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-8458

Citation Numbers: 331 F. App'x 195

Judges: Duncan, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/6/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023