Court Opinion

ID: 2670698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-21 19:23:37.870549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:17.610073
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7982

BRIAN KEITH HART,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00160-JAG)

Submitted:   April 17, 2014                 Decided:   April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Keith Hart, Appellant Pro Se.        Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Brian Keith Hart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       his    28    U.S.C.         § 2254    (2012)       petition    as

successive.         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) (2012).                       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) (2012).                    When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard    by     demonstrating             that   reasonable    jurists       would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.                    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);   see      Miller-El         v.   Cockrell,      537 U.S. 322,    336-38

(2003).     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.                               Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hart has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                We

dispense     with      oral      argument        because      the     facts     and    legal

                                                 2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3