US v. Ronald Marshall

Filing 920090729

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD ERIC MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00033-BEL-3)

Submitted:

July 23, 2009

Decided:

July 29, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Eric Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Ronald court's order Eric Marshall his prior Fed. seeks R. to appeal P. the district for 28

denying of a

Civ.

60(b) relief

motion on his

reconsideration

order

denying

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. appealable unless a circuit justice or

The order is not judge issues a

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-

El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the record and

conclude

Marshall

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. DISMISSED 2