Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Mack BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-21
Citations: 230 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 06-8077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Mack BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Mack BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-8077.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 4, 2007.
Decided: June 21, 2007.
Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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.