Court Opinion

ID: 9375227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:38.191208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.969481
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6988      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6988

        MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00493-HEH-EWH)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6988         Doc: 8      Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here,

        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 Dixon 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