US v. Wallace Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00437-CCB-1,1:11-cv-01135-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998726009]. Mailed to: Wallace Brown. [11-6989]

Appeal: 11-6989

Document: 10

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WALLACE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00437-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-01135-CCB)

Submitted:

November 15, 2011

Decided:

November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6989

Document: 10

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wallace

Brown

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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

Appeal: 11-6989

before

Document: 10

the

court

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3