Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07816/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07816-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taquan Dion Marquise Marshall
Appellant
Warden of the Sussex 2 State Prison
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7816 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 

Appeal: 14-7816 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7816 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 3