Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06933/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06933-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 23-6933

TARIQ RASHAD AMIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00459-DJN)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Michael Young, YOUNG LAW FIRM, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6933 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tariq Rashad Amin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

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 Amin has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Amin’s motion for 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: 23-6933 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2