Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Daniel Lee Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition or Rule 60(b) motion, which Brown did not obtain. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6827

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Daniel Lee Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition or Rule 60(b) motion, which Brown did not obtain. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Daniel Lee Brown's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition or Rule 60(b) motion, which Brown did not obtain. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Brown did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required. Therefore, the court dismissed 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. 04-6827

    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:

    September 16, 2004

    Decided:

    September 22, 2004

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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 his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a previous
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    An

    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a 2254 proceeding
    unless

    circuit

    justice

    or

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

    369

    (4th

    F.3d

    363

    Cir.

    2004)

    (holding

    the

    certificate

    of

    appealability standard applies to denials of motions under Fed. R.


    Civ. P. 60(b)).

    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).
    and

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the record

    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 adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like