United States v. Marsha King ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6019
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARSHA KING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    No. 19-6111
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARSHA KING,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00065-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:17-cv-
    00644-RAJ)
    Submitted: May 30, 2019                                           Decided: July 5, 2019
    Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marsha King, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated cases, Marsha King seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    denying relief on her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion and denying King’s motions for
    postjudgment relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are
    not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
    (2012). 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 King has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant King’s motion to supplement in
    Appeal No. 19-6019, we deny her motion for a transcript at government expense in
    Appeal No. 19-6111, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-6019

Filed Date: 7/5/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/5/2019