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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(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