United States v. Brown , 280 F. App'x 286 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY MACK BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. David A. Faber, District Judge,
sitting by designation. (7:99-cv-00346-DAF)
Submitted: May 16, 2008 Decided: June 2, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion.* The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369
(4th Cir. 2004). 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 leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
We note that the motion was a proper Rule 60(b) motion, not
a second or successive § 2255 motion, as the district court found.
See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 & n.4 (2005); United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003).
-2-
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-3-