Court Opinion

ID: 9913859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:53.301262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:28.003648
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6740      Doc: 13         Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6740

        DEVON ARMOND GAYLES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Department of Public Safety,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00105-MR)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Devon Armond Gayles, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6740      Doc: 13         Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Devon Armond Gayles 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 Gayles has not made

        the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Gayles’ motion for 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