# United States v. Jermaine Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 20, 2017 · 702 F. App'x 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4222208

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Antwan BROWN, A/K/A Twain, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 20, 2017
- **Citations:** 702 F. App'x 183
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Traxler, Keenan
- **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/4222208

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE ANTWAN BROWN, a/k/a Twalu,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00154-REP-RCY-2; 3:16-
cv-00466-REP-RCY)

Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 20, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Antwan Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jermaine Antwan 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4222208. Public record. Not legal advice.