Opinion

United States v. Kenneth Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jul 26, 2022
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.2%

The opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6160 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH LEE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00027-HMH-1; 7:22-

cv-00011-HMH)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6160 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

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

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.