Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06860/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06860-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6860

ANTON NELSON JOSHUA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00439-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Nelson Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6860 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anton Nelson Joshua, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Joshua’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)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joshua has not made 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6860 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2