# Brown v. Peguese

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 8, 2007 · 216 F. App'x 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1021718

## Case

- **Full name:** Curtis T. BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James Y. PEGUESE, Warden, Respondent, and J. Joseph Curran, Jr.; James Smith, Warden, Respondents—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 8, 2007
- **Citations:** 216 F. App'x 376
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, Traxler, 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/1021718

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7029

CURTIS T. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden,

Respondent,
and

J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; JAMES SMITH, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-
cv-02336-PJM)

Submitted: January 19, 2007 Decided: February 8, 2007

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis T. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Curtis T. 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 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/1021718. Public record. Not legal advice.