Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Marcus Parham, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marcus Parham's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motions for reconsideration. The appellate court cannot hear an appeal of such an order unless it issues a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's ruling. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found that Parham did not make the required showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Parham's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-08-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6552

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marcus Parham's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motions for reconsideration. The appellate court cannot hear an appeal of such an order unless it issues a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's ruling. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found that Parham did not make the required showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Parham's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    United States v. Marcus Parham, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Marcus Parham's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and motions for reconsideration. The appellate court cannot hear an appeal of such an order unless it issues a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's ruling. However, the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found that Parham did not make the required showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Parham's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6552

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge.
    (5:08-cr-00051-RLV-DCK-2; 5:13-cv00035-RLV)

    Submitted:

    August 21, 2014

    Decided:

    August 25, 2014

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Marcus Dwayne Parham, Appellant Pro Se.


    Kelli Hamby Ferry,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
    Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus
    courts

    order

    Dwayne

    denying

    Parham
    relief

    seeks

    on

    to

    his

    28

    appeal
    U.S.C.

    the

    district

    2255

    (2012)

    motion and his motions for reconsideration.

    The order is not

    appealable

    judge

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    or

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    Slack

    this

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Parham has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like