Court Opinion

ID: 9384236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 21:00:22.292579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.646799
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6826      Doc: 12         Filed: 03/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6826

        RONALD MILES,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD CLARKE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01119-TSE-TCB)

        Submitted: March 7, 2023                                          Decided: March 31, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6826      Doc: 12          Filed: 03/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronald Miles 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 Miles has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miles’ motion to supplement the record on

        appeal, 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