United States v. Marion Brewster

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7759 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7759

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARION QUINTON BREWSTER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00220-MOC-DSC-1; 3:19-cv- 00386-MOC)

Submitted: July 31, 2023 Decided: August 14, 2023

Before GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Quinton Brewster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-7759 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Quinton Brewster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion 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 Brewster has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny as

moot Brewster’s motion to place the case in abeyance for several cases that have been

resolved, 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