From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marvin v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 13, 2013
546 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-6645

11-13-2013

SAMUEL A. MARVIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee.

Samuel A. Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00609-JLK-RSB) Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel A. Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Samuel A. Marvin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Marvin's motions to assign counsel and to reconsider this court's previous order denying Marvin's motion to place the appeal in abeyance. 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

Marvin v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 13, 2013
546 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Marvin v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL A. MARVIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 13, 2013

Citations

546 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2013)