Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Daniel Lee Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief on Brown's petition. Brown now seeks to appeal the district court's denial. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Brown's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concludes that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denies Brown's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, denies a certificate of appealability, and dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-08-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6367

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daniel Lee Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief on Brown's petition. Brown now seeks to appeal the district court's denial. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Brown's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concludes that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denies Brown's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, denies a certificate of appealability, and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    Brown v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel Lee Brown filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his conviction. The district court denied relief on Brown's petition. Brown now seeks to appeal the district court's denial. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Brown's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independently reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit concludes that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denies Brown's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, denies a certificate of appealability, and dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6367

    DANIEL LEE BROWN,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD ANGELONE, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-716-3)

    Submitted:

    August 13, 2004

    Decided:

    August 25, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any 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).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Browns

    motion

    to

    hold

    this

    appeal

    in

    abeyance, 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 -

    You might also like