Opinion

United States v. Brown

  • 104 F. App'x 334
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Aug 13, 2004
Status
Published
On the bench
Gregory, Hamilton, Luttig
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.7%

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Wayne Mark Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion (No. 03- 7620), and the court’s order denying his motion to reopen habeas proceedings (No. 04- 6211). We first address the denial of Brown’s motion to reconsider.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1) (2000). The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is the final order in a habeas proceeding and thus requires a certificate of appealability for appeal. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 , 120 S.Ct. 1595 , 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). 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 in No. 03-7620.

We next consider the district court’s denial of Brown’s motion to reopen habeas proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in No. 04-6211. See United States v. Brown, No. CR-98-1126; CA-02-1434-0-23 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 8, 2003; entered Sept. 9, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 08-7620 DISMISSED; No. 01-6211 AFFIRMED

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.