Court Opinion

ID: 9895133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:31.218296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:24.657403
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6119      Doc: 6         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6119

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARIUS A. BROWN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00002-JPB-JPM-1; 5:22-cv-
        00239-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marius A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Cordaro Nogay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6119         Doc: 6      Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marius A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is 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 Brown 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