US v. Brian Debnam, No. 14-7202 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7202 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN RASHED DEBNAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00098-D-1; 5:13-cv-00858-D) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Rashed Debnam, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Rashed 28 the U.S.C. district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a constitutional his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Debnam of § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right.” 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Debnam has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Debnam’s motion for a copy of appeal. legal the record at government expense, and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
