# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 3, 2010 · 393 F. App'x 990

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/174785

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenyatte BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 3, 2010
- **Citations:** 393 F. App'x 990
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Duncan, Hamilton
- **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/174785

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENYATTE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:01-cr-01109-MJP-1; 3:07-cv-70011-MJP)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenyatte Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kenyatte Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2010) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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). 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/174785. Public record. Not legal advice.