Opinion

Marshall Brown, Jr. v. Eric Hooks

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 11, 2021
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.5%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7104

MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC HOOKS,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

KEN BEAVER,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at

Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00092-MR)

Submitted: April 29, 2021 Decided: May 11, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion to reconsider. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel and 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.

DISMISSED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.