# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 28, 2007 · 219 F. App'x 331

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1021922

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee BROWN, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 219 F. App'x 331
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Williams, Motz, 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/1021922

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH LEE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. District
Judge. (7:04-cr-27; 7:06-cv-01241-HMH)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kenneth Lee 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 Brown’s motion to

dismiss the indictment, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Brown’s motion for 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/1021922. Public record. Not legal advice.