US v. Mark Lynn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00082-REP-1,3:11-cv-00585-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538726]. Mailed to: Mark Lynn. [14-7211]

Appeal: 14-7211

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK LYNN, a/k/a Mark Aaron Lynn,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00082-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00585-REP)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Lynn, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Daniel Cooke,
Wingate Grant, II, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant
States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Gurney
United

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7211

Doc: 15

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark
denying

Lynn

seeks

relief

orders

are

issues

a

on

to

U.S.C.

§ 2255

unless

a

certificate

absent

district

28

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

the

appealable

not

his

appeal

“a

of

circuit

orders

motion.

justice

appealability.

or

28

The
judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

(2012)

court’s

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural 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
Lynn has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-7211

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 03/03/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3