Marvin Blunt v. Kuma DeBoo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00073-JPB-DJJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998651456]. Mailed to: Marvin Blunt. [11-6158]

Appeal: 11-6158

Document: 12

Date Filed: 08/10/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6158

MARVIN BLUNT,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
KUMA J. DEBOO, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00073-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted:

July 26, 2011

Decided:

August 10, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Blunt, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6158

Document: 12

Date Filed: 08/10/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marvin Blunt, a District of Columbia Code offender,
seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Blunt

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

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

2

Appeal: 11-6158

before

Document: 12

the

court

Date Filed: 08/10/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3