# Brown v. Langley

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 16, 2005 · 155 F. App'x 83

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1017639

## Case

- **Full name:** Nathaniel BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jennifer LANGLEY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 16, 2005
- **Citations:** 155 F. App'x 83
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Luttig, Duncan
- **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/1017639

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6758

NATHANIEL BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JENNIFER LANGLEY, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-561)

Submitted: October 19, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Nathaniel Brown, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338

(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/1017639. Public record. Not legal advice.