Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06630/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06630-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance L. Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6630

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LANCE L. BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:03-cr-00153-HEH; 3:05-cv-00833-HEH)

Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Rina C. Tucker, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Stephen Wiley

Miller, Charles Everett James, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6630 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lance L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting limited relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

dismissing the motion without prejudice. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

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); 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 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: 07-6630 Doc: 19 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2