Marlin Dumas v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for judicial notice [999795581-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00398-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999854486].. [14-7016]

Appeal: 14-7016

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7016

MARLIN MAURICE DUMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00398-RBS-LRL)

Submitted:

May 27, 2016

Decided:

June 15, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. O’Brien, Daniel T. Campbell, Joseph L. Meadows, Craig
P. Lytle, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Kathleen B.
Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7016

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marlin
accepting

Maurice
the

Dumas

appeals

recommendation

the

of

district

the

court’s

magistrate

order

judge

and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely.

In

his petition, Dumas sought to challenge his Virginia sentence of
mandatory life without parole under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.
Ct. 2455 (2012). *

The district court concluded that Miller was

not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review for
purposes

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1)(C)

(2012),

but

granted

a

certificate of appealability on the issue.
Subsequent to the district court’s decision, the Supreme
Court

held

(2016),

in

that

retroactive

Montgomery
Miller

in

cases

v.

Louisiana,

“announced
on

a

136

S.

substantive

collateral

review.”

Ct.

718,

rule

that

Because

732
is
the

district court did not have the benefit of this decision, we
vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in light
of Montgomery.

We express no opinion as to the timeliness or

merits of Dumas’ petition.
judicial notice.
facts

and

legal

We grant Dumas’ unopposed motion for

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

*

adequately

presented

in

the

Dumas received this mandatory life sentence for capital
murder; he was 16 at the time he committed the offense.

2

Appeal: 14-7016

Doc: 41

materials

before

Filed: 06/15/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3