US v. Anthony Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-18,5:13-cv-00023-RLV Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181143]. Mailed to: Brown. [13-6711]

Appeal: 13-6711

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Solo,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-18; 5:13-cv00023-RLV)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided:

August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas A. O’Malley,
Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6711

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony
court’s

order

Michael

dismissing

Brown
his

seeks

28

to

appeal

U.S.C.A.

§

the

2255

district

(West

Supp.

2013) motion as successive and unauthorized.

The order is not

appealable

judge

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-6711

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 08/27/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3