Samuel Marvin v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-6645 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6645 SAMUEL A. MARVIN, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00609-JLK-RSB) Submitted: October 30, 2013 Decided: November 13, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel A. Marvin, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel A. Marvin seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Marvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. motions to assign counsel and to We also deny Marvin s reconsider this court s previous order denying Marvin s motion to place the appeal in 2 abeyance. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3