Court Opinion

ID: 9381479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:26.878753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.812586
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6478      Doc: 8        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6478

        BLAKE VIA,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00192-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dale Reese Jensen, DALE JENSEN, PLC, Staunton, Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew P.
        Dullaghan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6478         Doc: 8      Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Blake Via 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 Via 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