# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 29, 2006 · 173 F. App'x 230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1018859

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas BROWN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 29, 2006
- **Citations:** 173 F. App'x 230
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams
- **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/1018859

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THOMAS BROWN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-89-147; CA-05-272-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 29, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Thomas Brown, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as

untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 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 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/1018859. Public record. Not legal advice.