Court Opinion

ID: 3187697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-22 19:01:19.124134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:03.398498
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6069

GREGSTON MARSHALL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LARRY EDMONDS, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00269-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:   March 17, 2016                 Decided:   March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregston Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gregston     Marshall     seeks     to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate        of       appealability.              28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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

Marshall has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we

deny Marshall’s motion for a certificate of appealability, grant

Marshall’s motion to amend his application for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

                                           2
facts   and   legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                     DISMISSED

                                       3