Court Opinion

ID: 7375269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-28 23:14:28.846864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:08.333855
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6575      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/24/2022    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6575

        MICHAEL E. GARNER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00560-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: February 14, 2022                                 Decided: February 24, 2022

        Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael E. Garner, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6575      Doc: 14          Filed: 02/24/2022     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael E. Garner 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, 137 S. Ct.

        759, 773-74 (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 Garner has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garner’s motion for appointment of counsel,

        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