# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 24, 2010 · 366 F. App'x 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031622

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, A/K/A Brian MacKey, A/K/A Destruction, A/K/A Bear, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 366 F. App'x 465
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Michael, King
- **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/1031622

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction,
a/k/a Bear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-RAJ-TEM-11)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for review of the court’s previous

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, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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/1031622. Public record. Not legal advice.