Marshall Lee Brown, Jr. v. Eric Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7104
MARSHALL LEE BROWN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
KEN BEAVER,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:18-cv-00092-MR)
Submitted: April 29, 2021 Decided: May 11, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Lee Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion to reconsider. 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). 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 could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Brown’s motion to appoint counsel and 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 of 2 --