United States of America v. Marcus Preston

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6758
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS PRESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-JFM-1)
Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
successive and without merit. 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 Preston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Preston’s motion
for transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --