US v. Craig Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:05-cr-00017-WDK-TEM-1,2:07-cv-00156-WDK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998454903] [10-6998]

US v. Craig Brown

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6998 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/28/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG LAMONT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6998 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/28/2010

Page: 2

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). justice or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a

substantial

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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 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 2

Case: 10-6998 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/28/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3