Court Opinion

ID: 1022815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:28:33.845979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.371642
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-8077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOHNNY MACK BROWN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-jhm; 7:06-cv-00647-jct)

Submitted:   June 4, 2007                  Decided:   June 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying    his   motion   for   reconsideration.       The     orders    are   not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

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

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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 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 -