# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 13, 2004 · 104 F. App'x 294

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014028

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 13, 2004
- **Citations:** 104 F. App'x 294
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1014028

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7620

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE MARK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 04-6211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE MARK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Dennis W.
Shedd, District Judges. (CR-98-1126; CA-02-1434-0-23)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: August 13, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 03-7620 dismissed; No. 04-6211 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Wayne Mark Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Wayne Mark Brown seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion (No. 03-7620), and the court’s order denying his motion to

reopen habeas proceedings (No. 04-6211). We first address the

denial of Brown’s motion to reconsider.

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).

The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas

proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for

appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 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.

- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal in No. 03-7620.

We next consider the district court’s denial of Brown’s

motion to reopen habeas proceedings. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court in No. 04-6211. See United States v. Brown,

No. CR-98-1126; CA-02-1434-0-23 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 8, 2003;

entered Sept. 9, 2003). 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.

No. 03-7620 DISMISSED;
No. 04-6211 AFFIRMED

- 4 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014028. Public record. Not legal advice.