US v. Harvey Brewer, Jr., No. 08-6691 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6691 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HARVEY J. BREWER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv02842-AMD; 1:04-cr-00215-AMD-2) Submitted: October 17, 2008 Decided: December 9, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harvey J. Brewer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harvey Brewer, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. not appealable unless a circuit issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice or The orders are judge A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would 28 U.S.C. standard find that by 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 Brewer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brewer s motion to amend his informal brief, 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 -

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.