# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 2006 · 178 F. App'x 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1019211

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerard Valmore BROWN, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 4, 2006
- **Citations:** 178 F. App'x 299
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 1 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/1019211

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1019211. Public record. Not legal advice.