Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06381/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chadwick Dotson
Appellee
Levi Gary Springer
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6229

LEVI G. SPRINGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of VA DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-6381

LEVI G. SPRINGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON, Director of VA DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01566-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levi Gary Springer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Levi G. Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive

petition and denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing. The orders are 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 Springer has not 

made the requisite showing. Thus, we deny Springer’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

We also deny 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6381 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3