US v. Marcus Preston

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999373598-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00342-JFM-1,1:14-cv-01389-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999422905]. Mailed to: Marcus Preston, Traci Robinson. [14-6758]--[Edited 08/26/2014 by CH]

Appeal: 14-6758

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS PRESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00342-JFM-1)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6758

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marcus Preston seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
successive
unless

a

and

without

circuit

appealability.

merit.

justice

or

The
judge

order

is

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Preston has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Preston’s motion
for transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6758

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 08/26/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3