Court Opinion

ID: 4031808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-07 19:00:54.302865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:10.843817
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 16-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAQUAN TYREK BROWN, a/k/a Scutter, a/k/a Scutter P, a/k/a
Keith Martin,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:11-cr-00472-PMD-16; 2:14-cv-02515-PMD)

Submitted:   August 31, 2016                 Decided:   September 7, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daquan Tyrek Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United   States  Attorney,  Charleston, South   Carolina,  for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Daquan Tyrek Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(2012).     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) (2012).                    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, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and    dismiss     the    appeal.             We   dispense       with    oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3