Court Opinion

ID: 1087068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-25 18:37:00.300578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:11.623142
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-6965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JERMAINE BROWN, a/k/a Jeezy,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.    Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-10; 4:13-cv-00041-
RBS)

Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Richard Murphy,
Special   Assistant  United   States   Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jermaine Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a    certificate      of    appealability.          28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Brown’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.                   We dispense with

oral    argument     because    the     facts     and   legal    contentions         are

                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3