# United States v. Louis Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 22, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396874

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 22, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/9396874

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6983 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6983

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LOUIS A. BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00057-REP-EWH-1; 3:21-
cv-00051-REP)

Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before WILKINSON, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6983 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Louis A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir.

2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of

limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396874. Public record. Not legal advice.