Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06408/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marquis Anthony Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARQUIS ANTHONY NELSON, a/k/a Marquis L. Nelson,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6408

MARQUIS ANTHONY NELSON, a/k/a Marquis L. Nelson,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Irene C. Berger, District

Judge. (1:08-cr-00058-1; 1:15-cv-13059)

Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-6408 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquis Anthony Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia; Steven 

Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6408 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marquis Anthony Nelson

challenges the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and denying several postjudgment motions.* 

Nelson also argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying his 

motion for production of certain documents. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Nelson’s 

motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of 

counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. Nelson, Nos. 1:08-cr-00058-1; 1:15-cv-13059

(S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2015 & Mar. 7, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * We previously remanded Case No. 16-6408 for the limited 

purpose of permitting the district court to supplement the record 

with an order granting or denying a certificate of appealability. 

The court denied a certificate of appealability, and Nelson also 

challenges that order. Upon closer examination, it appears that 

an order granting or denying a certificate of appealability was 

unnecessary. The court did not consolidate Nelson’s postjudgment 

motions and construe them as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

Instead, the court honored Nelson’s request and considered the 

motions as he presented them. 

Appeal: 16-6408 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3