Marcus Tunstall v. John Wolfe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:97-cv-04044-DKC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000303691]. Mailed to: Marcus Tunstall & Annabelle Lisic. [18-6143]

Appeal: 18-6143

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6143

MARCUS W. TUNSTALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN S. WOLFE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cv-04044-DKC)

Submitted: May 24, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus W. Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Decided: May 30, 2018

Appeal: 18-6143

Doc: 7

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marcus W. Tunstall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
motion for a certificate of appealability and to waive fees filed after the district court
denied Tunstall’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion related to his closed 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 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
petition 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 Tunstall 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