UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARLON BRAMWELL, a/k/a May Day,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:91-cr-00429-AVB-2; 1:14-cv-00691-LO)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jeffrey L. Shih, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s (1)
denial of his motion to correct the presentence report, (2)
denial of his self-styled motions to reopen his original
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding, and (3) dismissal as
successive of his § 2255 motion. We conclude that the
certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012), applies to (1) and (3) but not to (2).*
We therefore dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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 motion states a debatable claim
* Because the district court addressed Bramwell’s motions to
reopen under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 on the merits, the certificate
of appealability requirement applies to that portion of the
district court’s order. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d
392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015).
2
of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at
484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Bramwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the denial of Bramwell’s motions to reopen and the dismissal of
his § 2255 motion.
Turning to Bramwell’s motion to correct the presentence
report, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bramwell’s
informal brief does not challenge this basis for the district
court’s disposition, Bramwell has forfeited appellate review of
this portion of the court’s order. We therefore affirm the
district court’s denial of this motion.
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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3