Court Opinion

ID: 9890003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 21:00:35.241241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.228772
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423      Doc: 10         Filed: 10/10/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7423

        ELAN BELL-VENEY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        SHELBY SEARLS, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00232-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: October 4, 2023                                    Decided: October 10, 2023

        Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sherman Luis Lambert, Sr., Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lindsay Sara
        See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423         Doc: 10       Filed: 10/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elan Bell-Veney 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 Bell-Veney 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