# United States v. Rodney Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 29, 2016 · 667 F. App'x 72

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3218292

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Antawan BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 667 F. App'x 72
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, King, Wynn
- **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/3218292

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RODNEY ANTAWAN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00218-H-2; 5:14-cv-00643-H)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Antawan Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell
Corpening, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Rodney Antawan 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/3218292. Public record. Not legal advice.