United States of America v. Marcus Darrell Mack

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCUS DARRELL MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (3:97-cr-50040-NKM-10; 1:13-cv-00963-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Darrell Mack, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Darrell Mack seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the
motion without prejudice for failure to obtain authorization
from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). 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 motion 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 Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --