US v. Marlon Bramwell


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:91-cr-00429-AVB-2, 1:14-cv-00691-LO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999751638]. Mailed to: M. Bramwell. [15-7345]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7345 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARLON BRAMWELL, a/k/a May Day, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:91-cr-00429-AVB-2; 1:14-cv-00691-LO) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7345 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s (1) denial of his denial of motion his 28 U.S.C. of certificate correct self-styled § 2255 successive to (2012) his of the motions presentence to reopen proceeding, and motion. We § 2255 appealability report, his (3) requirement original dismissal conclude in (2) that 28 as the U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012), applies to (1) and (3) but not to (2).* We therefore dismiss in part and affirm in part. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court’s or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 motion states a debatable claim * Because the district court addressed Bramwell’s motions to reopen under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 on the merits, the certificate of appealability requirement applies to that portion of the district court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 2 Appeal: 15-7345 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 of the denial of a constitutional right. 484-85. Slack, 529 U.S. at We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bramwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the denial of Bramwell’s motions to reopen and the dismissal of his § 2255 motion. Turning report, we to Bramwell’s confine appellant’s brief. our motion review to to correct the the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). presentence raised in the Because Bramwell’s informal brief does not challenge this basis for the district court’s disposition, Bramwell has forfeited appellate review of this portion of the court’s order. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of this motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?