Opinion

United States v. Brown

  • 78 F. App'x 285
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 21, 2003
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.3%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NORMAN O’NEAL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (CR-90-45-WMN, CA-03-1145-WMN)

Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman O’Neal Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,

Assistant United States Attorney, John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Norman O’Neal Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001). 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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.