Court Opinion

ID: 9390593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 21:00:33.176032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.600788
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6608      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6608

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WALTER JAMES BROWN, II, a/k/a J Chill,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00150-D-1; 7:21-cv-00179-D)

        Submitted: April 7, 2023                                          Decided: April 26, 2023

        Before WYNN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Walter James Brown, II, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6608       Doc: 10         Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Walter James Brown, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, denying his motion for sanctions, and denying his mandamus

        petition. The denial of a § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural

        grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is

        debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)).

               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 this

        part of Brown’s appeal.

               Turning to the denial of Brown’s motion for sanctions and mandamus petition, we

        discern no reversible error. Thus, we affirm this part of the district court’s order. In

        addition, we deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel and to expedite the appeal.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6608         Doc: 10    Filed: 04/26/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                          DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                          AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                  3