US v. Johnny Mack Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:94-cr-00027-JPJ-RSB-1,3:13-cv-80651-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999301159]. Mailed to: Brown. [13-7689]

Appeal: 13-7689

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7689

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
James P. Jones,
District Judge.
(3:94-cr-00027-JPJ-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80651-JPJRSP)

Submitted:

February 10, 2014

Decided:

February 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7689

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying

his

appealable

motion
unless

for
a

reconsideration.

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

The
or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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: 13-7689

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 02/21/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3