US v. Kalvin Marshall, No. 12-7605 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7605 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KALVIN MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00225-HEH-2; 3:12-cv-00480-HEH) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kalvin Marshall, Assistant United Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kalvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and dismissing it as successive. justice or The order is judge issues a not appealable certificate of unless a circuit appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. this find 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard both by that constitutional demonstrating the claims that district is A prisoner satisfies reasonable court s debatable or jurists assessment wrong and would of his that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise See debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite 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 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.