US v. Thomas Brown, No. 19-6826 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS MONTRIL BROWN, a/k/a Sparks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00770-TLW-1; 4:16-cv-02254-TLW) Submitted: November 8, 2019 Decided: November 13, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Montril Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Montril Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * After the district court entered its judgment, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). In Davis, the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) (2012) is unconstitutionally vague. Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2336; accord United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 232-33, 252 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, No. 18-1338, 2019 WL 4923463 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2019). However, we recently held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) (2012), which remains intact after Davis. See United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir.) petition for cert. docketed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Oct. 28, 2019) (Nos. 19-6423/6424). 2 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.
