US v. Kenneth Brooks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH LAMONT BROOKS, a/k/a Kenny, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00119-CMC-1)
February 19, 2010
March 2, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Lamont Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lamont Brooks appeals the district court's
order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis or audita querela, 28 construing the petition, Supp. in 2009) part, as a and of
§ 2255 of
jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order to the See United States v.
extent that it denied the requested writs.
Brooks, No. 3:04-cr-00119-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2009). However, the portion of the district court's order
construing Brooks' petition as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
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." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
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); 2
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?