# United States v. Warren Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 4, 2015 · 615 F. App'x 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2856294

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren Harold BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 4, 2015
- **Citations:** 615 F. App'x 153
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, King, Floyd
- **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/2856294

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WARREN HAROLD BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00063-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00184-JRS)

Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 4, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Harold Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roderick Charles Young,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Warren Harold Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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/2856294. Public record. Not legal advice.