US v. Brennan, No. 05-7922 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7922 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM A. BRENNAN, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-02-59; CA-05-300-7) Submitted: May 24, 2006 Decided: June 13, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Brennan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Morgan Eugene Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William A. Brennan seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating constitutional that A prisoner satisfies this standard by reasonable claims are 28 jurists debatable would and that find any that his 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). record and showing. conclude and materials Brennan has not made the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts that We have independently reviewed the legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.