Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07594/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin W. Millsaps
Appellant
Oliver Washington
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7594

MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

OLIVER WASHINGTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 15-7601

MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

OLIVER WASHINGTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00113-FDW; 5:15-cv-00114-FDW)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

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

Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 15-7594 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7594 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Marvin W. Millsaps seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. 

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) (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 

Millsaps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We

deny Millsaps’ motion to supplement and dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7594 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7594 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/01/2016 Pg: 4 of 4