Court Opinion

ID: 4685884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-11 21:00:46.679294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:26.076801
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7104

MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ERIC HOOKS,

                     Respondent - Appellee,

              and

KEN BEAVER,

                     Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00092-MR)

Submitted: April 29, 2021                                         Decided: May 11, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion to reconsider. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 petition 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 Brown has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel and 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