# Brown v. Powell

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 18, 2006 · 161 F. App'x 329

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018252

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas William BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 18, 2006
- **Citations:** 161 F. App'x 329
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Traxler, 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/1018252

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7233

THOMAS WILLIAM BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

H. R. POWELL, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-195-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas William Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas William 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). The order is not appealable 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 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 further deny Brown’s request for

appointment of counsel. 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/1018252. Public record. Not legal advice.