Taquan Marshall v. Warden of Sussex 2 , 603 F. App'x 205 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7816
    TAQUAN DION MARQUISE MARSHALL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN OF THE SUSSEX 2 STATE PRISON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:13-cv-01351-LO-JFA)
    Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   May 15, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan
    Elizabeth Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall seeks to appeal the district
    court’s    order     denying      relief    on    his   28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2012)
    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) (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 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
    Marshall has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we
    deny Marshall’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                              We
    dispense      with       oral    argument     because        the    facts     and    legal
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-7816

Citation Numbers: 603 F. App'x 205

Filed Date: 5/15/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023