United States v. Marc Brickhouse ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARC SHAWN BRICKHOUSE, a/k/a Shawn Carter, a/k/a Potty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00106-LO-1; 1:11-cv-00790-LO)
Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: July 19, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Shawn Brickhouse, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Tolliver
Giles, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc Shawn Brickhouse seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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).
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 Brickhouse 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3