Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court dismissed Brown's appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6308

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court dismissed Brown's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Anthony Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Brown did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As a result, the court dismissed Brown's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6308

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY MICHAEL BROWN,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge.
    (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-18; 5:10-cv00004-RLV)

    Submitted:

    June 1, 2010

    Decided:

    June 9, 2010

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Anthony Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Ashville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony

    Michael

    Brown

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2009)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    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).

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.
    and

    conclude

    that

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record


    Brown

    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

    You might also like