Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07872/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07872-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Travis J. Marron
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7721

TRAVIS JACKSON MARRON, a/k/a Abdul Mu’Min,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA Dept. of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 19-7872

TRAVIS JACKSON MARRON, a/k/a Abdul Mu’Min,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA Dept. of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00400-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: April 21, 2020 Decided: April 28, 2020

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7872 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis J. Marron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7872 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Travis J. Marron seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2018) petition as successive and unauthorized and denying his postjudgment 

motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marron 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: 19-7872 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/28/2020 Pg: 3 of 3