Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06004/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TERRICIOUS BURNELL BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W. 

Flanagan, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00021-FL-1; 2:13-cv-00040-

FL) 

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Terricious Burnell Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-6004 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Terricious Burnell Brooks seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting in part the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). 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 

Brooks 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 

Appeal: 16-6004 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6004 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 3