US v. Frank Marfo, No. 19-6728 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6728 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK MARFO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00657-MJG-3; 1:15-cv-01940-MJG) Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 23, 2019 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Marfo, Appellant Pro Se. James Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Marfo appeals the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Marfo, No. 1:11-cr-00657-MJG-3 (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2019). We deny Marfo’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 194 (2009); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Additionally, we construe Marfo’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Marfo’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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 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.
