677 Fed.Appx. 122 (4th Cir. 2017), 16-7378, United States v. Brown

Docket Nº:16-7378
Citation:677 Fed.Appx. 122
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM BROWN, Defendant - Appellant
Attorney:William Brown, Appellant, Pro se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 22, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 122

677 Fed.Appx. 122 (4th Cir. 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM BROWN, Defendant - Appellant

No. 16-7378

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 22, 2017

Submitted February 16, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.(See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:12-cr-00239-GCM-DCK-18; 3:16-cv-00095-GCM). Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge.

Brown v. United States, (W.D.N.C., Sept. 16, 2016, Mar. 10, 2016)

William Brown, Appellant, Pro se.

Benjamin Bain-Creed, Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Page 123

PER CURIAM:

William Brown seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motions. The orders are 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP