The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6644 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAUN BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cr-00169-JKW-DEM-1; 2:21-cv-
00377)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan I. Edelstein, EDELSTEIN & GROSSMAN, New York, New York, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6644 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Through counsel, Shaun Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2