Court Opinion

ID: 9831351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:00.736001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.849889
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7242      Doc: 11         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7242

        ERIC GRUENINGER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00786-JAG-MRC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric Adam Grueninger, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7242      Doc: 11          Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Grueninger 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 Grueninger has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Grueninger’s “Motion for

        Leave to Amend Habeas Petition,” which we construe as a motion to supplement his

        informal brief, 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