Court Opinion

ID: 9556019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 21:00:27.319374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:13.492158
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7759      Doc: 19            Filed: 08/14/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 19-7759

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

               v.

        MARION QUINTON BREWSTER,

                      Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00220-MOC-DSC-1; 3:19-cv-
        00386-MOC)

        Submitted: July 31, 2023                                          Decided: August 14, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marion Quinton Brewster, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7759       Doc: 19         Filed: 08/14/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marion Quinton Brewster 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 Brewster has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny as

        moot Brewster’s motion to place the case in abeyance for several cases that have been

        resolved, 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