US v. Marlon Bramwell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?