# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 2, 2004 · 101 F. App'x 939

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013595

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 2, 2004
- **Citations:** 101 F. App'x 939
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/1013595

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013595. Public record. Not legal advice.