Court Opinion

ID: 9372120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:00:29.60084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.907076
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7436

        BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00807-AJT-MSN)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                  Decided: February 16, 2023

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bryant Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Bryant Matthew Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, 115-16 (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 Parker has not made

        the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motions for 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