# United States v. Anthony Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 27, 2013 · 538 F. App'x 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1038493

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 27, 2013
- **Citations:** 538 F. App'x 355
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1038493

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Solo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-18; 5:13-cv-
00023-RLV)

Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley,
Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.

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

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1038493. Public record. Not legal advice.