Court Opinion

ID: 9930422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:00:51.975399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:20.824930
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6183      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6183

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TERRENCE D. MARSH,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00019-TSK-MJA-1;
        1:21-cv-00079-TSK)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terrence D. Marsh, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6183         Doc: 5      Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terrence D. Marsh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying reconsideration. 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 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

               *
                We decline to consider Marsh’s challenge to his sentence that he raises for the first
        time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                     2