Court Opinion

ID: 4205745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-09-22 19:00:58.108859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:38.021682
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-6317

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MARCUS PRESTON,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J.
Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-JFM-1; 1:16-cv-02291-JFM)

Submitted: August 29, 2017                                  Decided: September 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Debra Lynn
Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Salem, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court’s margin order denying relief on

his emergency supplemental 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 Preston 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

                                              2