United States v. Thomas Brown

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6066 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6066 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS MONTRIL BROWN, a/k/a Sparks,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; 4:22-cv-02433-TLW) Submitted: January 30, 2025 Decided: February 4, 2025 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Montril Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Scott Lietzow, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6066 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Montril Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(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). 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)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We 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 2