United States v. Brown , 259 F. App'x 558 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6630
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LANCE L. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00153-HEH; 3:05-cv-00833-HEH)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lance L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Rina C. Tucker, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Stephen Wiley
Miller, Charles Everett James, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lance L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting limited relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
dismissing the motion without prejudice. 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 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 -