Court Opinion

ID: 1010225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:08:08.816183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:08.670520
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ROBERT L. BROWN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-
99-423-S, CA-02-3963-S)

Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 31, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

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

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

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

When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue

unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the [motion] states a valid claim

of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

correct in its procedural ruling.’”    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684

(4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)),

cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).    We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Brown has not satisfied this standard.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell,      U.S.       , 2003 WL 431659, at *10

(U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662).         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

                                2