Manuel Marin v. Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6954 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6954 MANUEL A. MARIN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6954 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6954 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 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