# United States v. William Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 22, 2017 · 677 F. App'x 122

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4147494

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 22, 2017
- **Citations:** 677 F. App'x 122
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Duncan, Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam
- **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/4147494

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00239-GCM-DCK-18; 3:16-cv-00095-GCM)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, Maria
Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

William Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) motions. The orders are 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 contentions are

2
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/4147494. Public record. Not legal advice.