Court Opinion

ID: 6118220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-03 20:00:28.754481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.541648
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MARCUS SHUAIB SMITH, a/k/a Lo,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00051-BR-1; 5:18-cv-00499-BR)

Submitted: January 10, 2022                                       Decided: February 3, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Shuaib Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marcus Shuaib Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made

the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for 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