Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07713/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Lamont Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH LAMONT BROOKS, a/k/a Kenny,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:04-cr-00119-CMC-1)

Submitted: February 19, 2010 Decided: March 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Kenneth Lamont Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7713 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lamont Brooks appeals the district court’s 

order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis or 

audita querela, construing the petition, in part, as a 

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and 

dismissing that portion of the petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order to the 

extent that it denied the requested writs. See United States v. 

Brooks, No. 3:04-cr-00119-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2009). 

However, the portion of the district court’s order 

construing Brooks’ petition as a successive § 2255 motion and 

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Appeal: 09-7713 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

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 contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 09-7713 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2010 Pg: 3 of 3