Opinion

United States v. Jean Brown

  • 669 F. App'x 128
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 4, 2016
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Shedd, Keenan, Harris
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.2%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6384

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEAN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District

Judge. (1:11-cr-00050-JFM-1; 1:15-cv-00590-JFM)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jean Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Thomas Shea, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jean Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.