UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL J. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00016-NKM-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80559-
NKM-RSB)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Theodore Heblich, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia; Christine Madeleine Lee,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Nancy Spodick Healey, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel J. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We further deny Brown’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3