Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07812/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07812-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joan Marsh
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOAN MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:11-cr-00128-HEH-RCY-2; 3:13-cv-00277-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joan Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia; Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7812 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joan Marsh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying 

relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Marsh 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

Appeal: 15-7812 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2