The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6991
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDERICK GASTON BROWN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00149-RGD-3;
2:16-cv-00258-RGD)
Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Gaston Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Gaston Brown, Jr., 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 Brown’s motions to appoint counsel
and compel discovery, 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