Court Opinion

ID: 217131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-05-20 19:17:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:40.669928
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-6225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

HORACE LINTON BROWN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:06-cr-00140-PJM-1; 8:09-cv-00029-PJM)

Submitted:   January 28, 2011              Decided:   May 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace Linton Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, James
Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Horace       Linton    Brown         seeks    to   appeal        the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2010)    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).                   When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard    by    demonstrating          that    reasonable      jurists      would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.                Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);    see    Miller-El      v.   Cockrell,         537 U.S. 322,   336-38

(2003).     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.                             Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.          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

                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3