Court Opinion

ID: 9963204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:00:57.240273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.077922
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6857      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/23/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6857

        LARRY DAVIS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
        MARYLAND,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-03002-CCB)

        Submitted: March 15, 2024                                           Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6857         Doc: 7      Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition. 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 Davis has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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

                                                      2