The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GERARD VALMORE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-281; CA-05-885-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerard Valmore Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Valmore Brown, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
from the district court’s order construing his petition for a writ
of error coram nobis as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and
dismissing it as a successive motion for which authorization had
not been obtained. We find that the district court properly
construed the motion as one under § 2255. See Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 528 & n.1 (4th Cir. 1970); see also Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647 (2005) (where a motion is “in
substance a successive habeas petition,” it “should be treated
accordingly”).
Because Brown’s petition was properly construed as a
§ 2255 motion, the order dismissing the motion is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton,
392 F.3d 683 (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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is 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,
- 2 -
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
- 3 -