US v. Marques Long, No. 17-6970 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARQUES ODELL LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cr-00145-WO-1; 1:15-cv01120-WO-LPA) Submitted: April 6, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marques Odell Long, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marques Odell Long seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to vacate. We previously granted a certificate of appealability and ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether Long has the requisite predicate convictions to qualify as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). We have reviewed the record, including the parties’ informal briefs following the issuance of the certificate of appealability, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to the claim on which we granted a certificate of appealability, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Long, Nos. 1:13-cr00145-WO-1; 1:15-cv-01120-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2017). As to Long’s remaining claims, we conclude that he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability as to those claims and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
