# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 21, 2007 · 259 F. App'x 558

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1024516

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance L. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 21, 2007
- **Citations:** 259 F. App'x 558
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Motz, 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/1024516

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6630

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LANCE L. BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00153-HEH; 3:05-cv-00833-HEH)

Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Rina C. Tucker, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Stephen Wiley
Miller, Charles Everett James, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lance L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting limited relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

dismissing the motion without prejudice. 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/1024516. Public record. Not legal advice.