Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Emanuel Brown v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    1) Emanuel Brown appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The court of appeals denies Brown a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the district court's dismissal. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Brown's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-6565

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Emanuel Brown appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The court of appeals denies Brown a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the district court's dismissal. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Brown's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

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

    Emanuel Brown v. Eric Wilson, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Emanuel Brown appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The court of appeals denies Brown a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the district court's dismissal. 3) The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Brown's constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 12-6565

    EMANUEL BROWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC WILSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:12-cv-00232-TSE-IDD)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2012

    Decided:

    June 6, 2012

    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Emanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Emanuel

    Brown

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    order treating his 28 U.S.C.A. 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011)
    petition as
    motion

    and

    appealable

    successive

    28

    U.S.C.

    on

    that

    dismissing

    it

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    2255

    (West

    basis.

    justice

    The
    or

    Supp.

    order

    judge

    2010)

    is

    issues

    not
    a

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Brown has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in


    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
    2

    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