The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6409 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVIER BROWN, a/k/a Juv,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00630-MGL-1; 3:21-cv-00568-MGL)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Javier Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6409 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Javier Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
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. See United States v. Davis, __ F.4th __, __, No. 20-4433, 2023 WL
4876392, at *9-13 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2023). 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