Court Opinion

ID: 4656718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-02 20:00:28.39966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:23.581342
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6430

JOHN BRADLEY CRAWFORD,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00522-JAG)

Submitted: December 18, 2020                                      Decided: February 2, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       John Bradley Crawford 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 showing 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 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 Crawford has not

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

                                             2