Court Opinion

ID: 4570790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-29 19:00:42.249974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:53.058600
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6621

MICHAEL ALLEN BERRY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01535-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: September 24, 2020                               Decided: September 29, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Berry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Michael Allen Berry seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. 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 Berry has not made

the requisite showing. Moreover, Berry has since paid the filing fee and the district court

reopened Berry’s § 2254 proceeding. Accordingly, Berry has received the relief he seeks

on appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as moot.

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