# Emanuel Brown v. Eric Wilson

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 6, 2012 · 474 F. App'x 115

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/801718

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Douglas BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 6, 2012
- **Citations:** 474 F. App'x 115
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Duncan, Diaz
- **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/801718

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6565

EMANUEL BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00232-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Emanuel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011)

petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

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) (2006). 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, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/801718. Public record. Not legal advice.