U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2020

United States v. Marvin White

United States v. Marvin White
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 10, 2020

United States v. Marvin White

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARVIN JOSHUA WHITE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:15-cr-00715-RBH-1; 4:19-cv-00378-RBH)

Submitted: June 29, 2020 Decided: July 10, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Joshua White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Marvin Joshua White seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 White 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.