United States of America v. Glenn Brooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6628
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GLENN BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00330-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-03469-WDQ)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Glenn Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
* On appeal, Brooks challenges the district court’s
re-characterization of his motion as one pursuant to § 2255.
The district court, having provided the requisite notice
pursuant to Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003),
properly construed Brooks’ amended filing as a § 2255 motion
attacking his conviction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Brooks 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

-- 3 of 3 --