United States v. Brower , 157 F. App'x 610 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7156
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOHN L. BROWER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
    Judge. (CR-02-21; CA-04-1054)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 6, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John L. Brower, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    John L. Brower seeks to appeal from the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).    The order is 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
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
    the district court are also debatable or wrong.               See 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 Brower
    has not made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny Brower’s
    motion for 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7156

Citation Numbers: 157 F. App'x 610

Judges: Motz, Traxler, Gregory

Filed Date: 12/6/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024