Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06069/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6069

GREGSTON MARSHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LARRY EDMONDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00269-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregston Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6069 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregston 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, grant 

Marshall’s motion to amend his application for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

Appeal: 16-6069 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6069 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3