# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 8, 2004 · 102 F. App'x 334

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013701

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, A/K/A Bear, A/K/A Destruction, A/K/A Brian MacKey, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 8, 2004
- **Citations:** 102 F. App'x 334
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, Gregory, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 1 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/1013701

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6201

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Bear, a/k/a
Destruction, a/k/a Brian Mackey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-98-47; CA-01-774-02)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: July 8, 2004

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, in which

he sought reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 WL 1119646, No. 03-6146 (4th Cir. May

19, 2004). 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 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/1013701. Public record. Not legal advice.