# Brown v. Johnson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 28, 2010 · 363 F. App'x 246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031368

## Case

- **Full name:** Troy Atera BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Dept of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 2010
- **Citations:** 363 F. App'x 246
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, King, Davis
- **Cited by:** 1 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/1031368

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8129

TROY ATERA BROWN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Dept of Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:09-cv-00435-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Atera Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Troy Atera Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as

untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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 for 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/1031368. Public record. Not legal advice.