# Brown v. United States

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · October 2, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10231908

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** October 2, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **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/10231908

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
PARRISH BROWN, )
Movant,
v. No. 4:19-cv-1903-JAR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. For the reasons explained below,

movant Patrish Brown’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 will be dismissed as untimely.
On July 1, 2019, movant Parrish Brown filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging the judgment entered in U.S. v. Brown, No.

4:15-cr-520-JAR-1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 13, 2016). As explained in this Court’s August 21, 2019

order, movant filed the motion after the expiration of the one-year limitations period applicable

to motions filed pursuant to § 2255. The Court directed movant to show cause why his motion

should not be dismissed as untimely, and cautioned him that his failure to timely comply would

result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and without further notice. Movant's

response to the Court was due on September 20, 2019. To date, however, he has neither

responded to the Court’s order nor sought additional time to do so.

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the petition is time-barred, The

Court will therefore summarily dismiss it pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section

2255 proceedings in the United States District Courts. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198,

210 (2006) (a district court may consider, on its own initiative, whether a habeas action is time-

barred, but must provide notice to the movant before dismissing it as such).
The Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To do so, the

Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See

Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial showing is a showing that

issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a Court could resolve the issues differently, or the

issues deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing
Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994)), Because movant herein has made no such

showing, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Parrish Brown’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct

his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED. A separate order of dismissal wil! be

entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
Dated this 2™ day of October, 2019.
for
UNIPED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10231908. Public record. Not legal advice.