Court Opinion

ID: 9908569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 21:00:31.592548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:16.347867
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6162      Doc: 15         Filed: 12/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6162

        HARSHADKUMAR NANJIBHAI JADAV,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        J. WOODSON, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00136-TSE-IDD)

        Submitted: November 6, 2023                                  Decided: December 8, 2023

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Harshadkumar Nanjibhai Jadav, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6162       Doc: 15         Filed: 12/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Harshadkumar Nanjibhai Jadav 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 Jadav has not made

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

        motion for appointment of counsel, 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