# Brown v. Lewis

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 2011 · 427 F. App'x 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/216127

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrice E. LEWIS, Judge; Ben C. Clyburn, Chief Judge; Douglas F. Gansler; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 4, 2011
- **Citations:** 427 F. App'x 258
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Shedd
- **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/216127

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6271

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

PATRICE E. LEWIS, Judge; BEN C. CLYBURN, Chief Judge;
DOUGLAS F. GANSLER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-03349-BEL)

Submitted: April 22, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion to reopen after the district

court dismissed his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th

Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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/216127. Public record. Not legal advice.