US v. Joan Marsh


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00128-HEH-RCY-2,3:13-cv-00277-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999802889]. Mailed to: Joan Marsh. [15-7812]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7812 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOAN MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00128-HEH-RCY-2; 3:13-cv-00277-HEH-RCY) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joan Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia; Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7812 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/25/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Joan Marsh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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 (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 of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marsh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 2

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?