Opinion
No. 13-6936
2013-10-21
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY CHARLES BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.
Phillip Lingafelt, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-70105-JLK-RSB-1; 4:11-cv-80361-JLK-RSB) Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Lingafelt, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Anthony Charles Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Brown's motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED