Samuel Marvin v. Harold Clarke , 546 F. App'x 216 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6645
SAMUEL A. MARVIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00609-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: November 13, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel A. Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel A. Marvin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Marvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Marvin’s
motions to assign counsel and to reconsider this court’s
previous order denying Marvin’s motion to place the appeal in
2
abeyance. 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