# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 9, 2007 · 212 F. App'x 189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1021506

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 9, 2007
- **Citations:** 212 F. App'x 189
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Traxler, Shedd
- **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/1021506

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7171

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIUS BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:00-cr-
00100-AMD; 1:05-cr-001308-AMD)

Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 9, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Julius Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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/1021506. Public record. Not legal advice.