U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2022

United States v. Marcus Smith

United States v. Marcus Smith
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 3, 2022

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255 motion. 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

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