Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06340/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06340-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus Terrell Spencer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS TERRELL SPENCER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (7:18-cr-00853-DCC-1; 7:22-cv00942-DCC)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Terrell Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6340 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Terrell Spencer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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, as here, 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spencer 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 are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6340 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2