United States v. Brown

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6998

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

CRAIG LAMONT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:05-cr-00017-WDK-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00156-WDK)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Lamont Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamont Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the

court’s earlier denial of his motion to compel on the grounds

that Brown sought successive relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2010). 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). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 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 and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED