US v. Marcus Mack, No. 13-8019 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARCUS DARRELL MACK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (3:97-cr-50040-NKM-10; 1:13-cv-00963-CMH-IDD) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Darrell Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Darrell Mack seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing the motion without prejudice for failure to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by 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. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal 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.
