# United States v. Daquan Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 7, 2016 · 668 F. App'x 492

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4031808

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daquan Tyrek BROWN, A/K/A Scutter, A/K/A Scutter P, A/K/A Keith Martin, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 7, 2016
- **Citations:** 668 F. App'x 492
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Shedd, Wynn, Diaz
- **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/4031808

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAQUAN TYREK BROWN, a/k/a Scutter, a/k/a Scutter P, a/k/a
Keith Martin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00472-PMD-16; 2:14-cv-02515-PMD)

Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 7, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daquan Tyrek Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Daquan Tyrek 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, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
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/4031808. Public record. Not legal advice.