US v. Marcus Preston, No. 14-6758 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCUS PRESTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-JFM-1) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive unless a and without circuit appealability. merit. justice or The judge order is issues not a appealable certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion 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 Preston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Preston s motion for transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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.
