Court Opinion

ID: 9397679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 21:02:31.062053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.910260
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6088      Doc: 9        Filed: 05/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6088

        CLAUDE OWEN WILSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00613-HEH-EWH)

        Submitted: October 19, 2022                                         Decided: May 24, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Claude Owen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6088         Doc: 9      Filed: 05/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Claude Owen Wilson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

        dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

        justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Wilson 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