United States v. Mark Bush, Jr. ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK STEVEN BUSH, JR., a/k/a Unc,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:16-cr-00227-1; 3:17-cv-03875)
Submitted: October 16, 2020 Decided: November 4, 2020
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Steven Bush, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Steven Bush, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bush’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–
74 (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, 565 U.S.
134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). And the timely
filing of specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report is necessary to preserve
appellate review when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that as to the claims for
which Bush lodged timely, specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report, Bush 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
2
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3