Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08129/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy Atera Brown
Appellant
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8129

TROY ATERA BROWN, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Dept of Corrections, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00435-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Troy Atera Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-8129 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Troy Atera Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Brown’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8129 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2