UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7549

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN ROBERT BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00532-ELH-2; 1:16-cv-04075-ELH)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Robert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lee Andrew Flagg, Lauren Elizabeth Perry, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Matthew Kevin Hoff, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Robert Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

(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,

.

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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2