United States v. Marcus Smith
United States v. Marcus Smith
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6424
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS SHUAIB SMITH, a/k/a Lo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00051-BR-1; 5:18-cv-00499-BR)
Submitted: January 10, 2022 Decided: February 3, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Shuaib Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Marcus Shuaib Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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). 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,
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 Smith has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for 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- Unpublished