US v. Warren Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00063-JRS-1,3:14-cv-00184-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999654405].. [15-6420]

Appeal: 15-6420

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WARREN HAROLD BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00063-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00184-JRS)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015

Decided:

September 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Harold Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Erik Sean Siebert,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roderick Charles Young,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6420

Doc: 9

Filed: 09/04/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Warren Harold Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of 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.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6420

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 09/04/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3