US v. Ronald Marshall, No. 09-6491 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6491 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD ERIC MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00033-BEL-3) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald court s order Eric Marshall denying reconsideration of a his seeks Fed. prior R. order to appeal Civ. P. denying unless a circuit justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 60(b) relief U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. appealable the district motion on for his 28 The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability will 369 not (4th Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller- El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Marshall independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.