United States v. Brown ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7708
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    THOMAS BROWN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-89-147; CA-05-272-1)
    Submitted: March 23, 2006                    Decided: March 29, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF
    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Brown, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) as
    untimely.     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    § 2255 proceeding 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    his
    constitutional    claims   are   debatable   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 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7708

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 3/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024