Court Opinion

ID: 9839989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 21:00:36.968675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:52.801742
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6087   Doc: 10        Filed: 09/13/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                        UNPUBLISHED

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                           No. 23-6087

        RILEY DYSON BIRO,

                         Petitioner - Appellant,

                   v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                         Respondent - Appellee.

                                           No. 23-6088

        RILEY DYSON BIRO,

                         Petitioner - Appellant,

                   v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                         Respondent - Appellee.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6087      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/13/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

                                              No. 23-6089

        RILEY DYSON BIRO,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01209-TSE-JFA; 1:22-cv-
        01208-TSE-JFA; 1:22-cv-01210-TSE-JFA)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                  Decided: September 13, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Riley Dyson Biro, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6087      Doc: 10          Filed: 09/13/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, Riley Dyson Biro seeks to appeal the district court’s

        orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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)).

               From our review of the record, it appears the district court mistakenly relied on the

        wrong state court proceedings in determining that Biro failed to exhaust his state remedies.

        As relevant here, a Virginia jury convicted Biro of two misdemeanors and a felony (the

        “original criminal proceedings”). After completing his custodial sentences, Biro violated

        the terms of his supervised probation, prompting the state court to revoke Biro’s probation

        (the “revocation proceedings”). Biro then filed three § 2254 petitions—one for each of the

        convictions from the original criminal proceedings—in the district court, asserting several

        constitutional violations. However, in its exhaustion analysis, the district court referenced

        the case numbers associated with the revocation proceedings, not the original criminal

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6087        Doc: 10         Filed: 09/13/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        proceedings, indicating that its exhaustion finding was predicated on the wrong group of

        cases.

                 For this reason, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court’s

        orders, and remand for further proceedings. 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.

                                                                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                       4