US v. Johnny Brown, No. 13-7689 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7689 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Charlottesville. James P. Jones, District Judge. (3:94-cr-00027-JPJ-RSB-1; 3:13-cv-80651-JPJRSP) Submitted: February 10, 2014 Decided: February 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Mack Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Johnny Mack Brown seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his appealable motion unless for a reconsideration. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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 and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
