# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 21, 2010 · 363 F. App'x 220

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031301

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 21, 2010
- **Citations:** 363 F. App'x 220
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/1031301

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOE ANTHONY BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00185-FDW-5; 3:08-cv-00524-FDW)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 21, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Anthony Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Joe Anthony Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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/1031301. Public record. Not legal advice.