The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6713
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DWIGHT BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-01-482-WDQ; CA-03-3270-WDQ)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Dwight Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Brown cannot appeal
this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate
of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets
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 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 -