Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Bear, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 09-7794
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Bear, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Bear, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7794.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 24, 2010.
Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for review of the court's previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order 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, 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, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con- tensions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.