Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARVIN RASHAAD CUMMINGS, a/k/a Ray Ray
Case Number: 20-7560
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff's Attorney: John Everett Harris, Michael Gordon James
Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendants with seeking to appeal the district courts’ orders denying relief.
Marvin Rashaad Cummings, Randolph Levy Hyman, Jr., Thomas Lamont Jones,
Raphael Davonne Powell, Joshua Hunt, Marcus Gerome Hyde, and Kendricus Marquell
Williams (collectively, “Appellants”) seek to appeal the district courts’ orders denying
relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions. The orders are 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, 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 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,
Outcome: We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Appellants have not
made the requisite showing, as their claims are foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we deny Appellants’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.