United States v. Marlon Pettaway
United States v. Marlon Pettaway
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6654
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARLON PETTAWAY, a/k/a Chrome,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-00098-MSD-FBS-1; 4:17-cv-00066-MSD)
Submitted: November 20, 2018 Decided: January 11, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Pettaway, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Marlon Pettaway seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his
28 U.S.C. § 2255(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Pettaway 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished