US v. Charles Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00017-MFU-RSB-1, 5:15-cv-80868-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000059552]. Mailed to: Charles Brown. [16-7524, 16-7525]

Appeal: 16-7524

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/11/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7524

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

No. 16-7525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES FRANKLIN BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00017-MFU-RSB-1; 5:15cv-80868-MFU-RSB; 5:13-cr-00030-MFU-RSB-5; 5:15-cv-80869-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 11, 2017

Appeal: 16-7524

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/11/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Franklin Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia; Drew Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7524

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/11/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Charles Franklin 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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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). 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
(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 a debatable claim of
the denial of a constitutional right. 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 these consolidated appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3