# Brown v. Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 7, 2004 · 91 F. App'x 313

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013014

## Case

- **Full name:** Calvin A. BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 7, 2004
- **Citations:** 91 F. App'x 313
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013014

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7389

CALVIN A. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1272)

Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Calvin A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

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 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,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Brown’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis,

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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013014. Public record. Not legal advice.