From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marron v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 28, 2020
No. 19-7721 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-7721 No. 19-7872

04-28-2020

TRAVIS JACKSON MARRON, a/k/a Abdul Mu'Min, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VA Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Travis J. Marron, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00400-TSE-IDD) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis J. Marron, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Travis J. Marron seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as successive and unauthorized and denying his postjudgment 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)(A) (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 petition 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 Marron 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


Summaries of

Marron v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 28, 2020
No. 19-7721 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)
Case details for

Marron v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:TRAVIS JACKSON MARRON, a/k/a Abdul Mu'Min, Petitioner - Appellant, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 28, 2020

Citations

No. 19-7721 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)