The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7689
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY MACK BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones,
District Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-JPJ-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80651-JPJ-
RSP)
Submitted: February 10, 2014 Decided: February 21, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his motion for reconsideration. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). 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