Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07456/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07456-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clark
Appellee
Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7456

JOSHUA CHARLES LOVELL MOSELEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00040-REP-RCY)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7456 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moseley has not 

made the requisite showing. We therefore 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: 19-7456 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2