Court Opinion

ID: 9882034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:53.323753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:19.152994
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6663      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6663

        RICHARD E. KARTMAN,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        SHELBY SEARLS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00056-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: March 30, 2023                                         Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard E. Kartman, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6663         Doc: 12      Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard E. Kartman 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 Kartman 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