# United States v. Johnny Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 21, 2014 · 555 F. App'x 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2654096

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny MacK BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 21, 2014
- **Citations:** 555 F. App'x 263
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Motz, King
- **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/2654096

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2654096. Public record. Not legal advice.