Court Opinion

ID: 5176331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-05 22:00:46.36826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:20.319716
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-7117

JEREMY LEE WATSON-BUISSON,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01454-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: December 17, 2021                                      Decided: January 5, 2022

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Lee Watson-Buisson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jeremy Lee Watson-Buisson 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, 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 Watson-Buisson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Watson-Buisson’s motion 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