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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(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,

(4th Cir. 2014).

2