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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: M. Bramwell. [15-7345]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
January 28, 2016
February 9, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s (1)
§ 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).
When the district court denies
(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).
Pg: 3 of 3
of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Bramwell has not made the requisite showing.
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.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
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?