United States v. Kermit Brown

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6165 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Bear, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-RAJ-RJK-11; 2:01- cv-00774-RAJ) Submitted: February 27, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6165 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from the district court’s 2001 order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Brown’s informal brief, we conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We * Motions filed “under [Rule] 60(b)(4) . . . [are] not subject to the reasonable time limitations imposed in the other provisions of Rule 60(b).” In re Heckert, 272 F.3d 253, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2001). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6165 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3