Manuel A. Marin v. Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6954
MANUEL A. MARIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (2:22-cv-00351-DCC)
Submitted: February 28, 2025 Decided: April 29, 2025
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Manuel A. Marin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Manuel A. Marin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Marin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17
(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)).
First, we grant Marin’s motions to amend his informal brief, but we deny his motion
for transcripts at government expense. Limiting our review of the record to the issues
raised in Marin’s informal briefs, we conclude that Marin has not made the requisite
showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir.
2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our
review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --