United States of America v. George Martin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6922
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GEORGE MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00021-IMK-MJA-1; 1:13-cv-00149-IMK-
MJA)
Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
(1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on most of the claims raised in Martin’s 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion; and (2) denying relief on one
specific aspect of Martin’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim on which the court held an evidentiary hearing. The
orders are 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
Martin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --