The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6789 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6789
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRANCE NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a War, a/k/a War Stone, a/k/a
Luciano,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cr-30026-MFU-JCH-4; 7:22-
cv-81487-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6789 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Nathaniel Brown, Jr., 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. Accordingly, while we grant counsel’s motion to amend Brown’s
informal brief, 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