Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06376/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earl Barksdale
Appellee
Commonwealth of Virginia
Appellee
Alvin Marshall
Appellant
Supreme Court of Virginia
Appellee
United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6376

ALVIN MARSHALL,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 

Prosecutor; WARDEN EARL BARKSDALE,

 Respondents - Appellees.

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-00312-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6376 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 

363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 16-6376 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-6376 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3