# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 29, 2007 · 215 F. App'x 208

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1021701

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Mark BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 29, 2007
- **Citations:** 215 F. App'x 208
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Michael, Hamilton
- **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/1021701

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE MARK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (0:98-cr-01126-JFA-8; 0:06-cv-00187-JFA)

Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Mark Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Wayne Mark Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as successive 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 a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny his motion to hold

his appeal in abeyance and 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/1021701. Public record. Not legal advice.