Court Opinion

ID: 4663011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-25 20:00:56.198699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:50.533733
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 19-7686

TREMAINE RASHON WRAY,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

WARDEN DENNIS BUSH,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:17-cv-03066-BHH)

Submitted: December 1, 2020                                    Decided: February 25, 2021

Before KEENAN, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremaine Rashon Wray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Tremaine Rashon Wray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wray’s 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 Wray has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Wray’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