Court Opinion

ID: 9837979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:58.258253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.775522
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6415      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6415

        QUINDELL MONTRAE’ KIRBY

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

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

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00216-HEH-MRC)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Quindell Montrae’ Kirby, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6415      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Quindell Montrae’ Kirby seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here,

        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 Kirby has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal. We also deny Kirby’s motion to appoint counsel. 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