USCA4 Appeal: 23-6183 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRENCE D. MARSH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cr-00019-TSK-MJA-1; 1:21-cv-00079-TSK)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence D. Marsh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6183 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Terrence D. Marsh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying 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). 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 Marsh 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

* We decline to consider Marsh’s challenge to his sentence that he raises for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).