United States v. Raymond Marker , 441 F. App'x 153 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6180
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RAYMOND M. MARKER,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   N. Carlton Tilley,
    Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00010-NCT-1; 1:08-cv-647)
    Submitted:   July 28, 2011                 Decided:   August 1, 2011
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Raymond M. Marker, Appellant Pro Se.   L. Patrick Auld, Angela
    Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond M. Marker seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying    relief        on    his   
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
        (West   Supp.    2011)
    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
    .              We have independently reviewed the record
    and conclude that Marker 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6180

Citation Numbers: 441 F. App'x 153

Filed Date: 8/1/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021