Court Opinion

ID: 9404757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-24 21:00:41.28976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.918754
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7695      Doc: 12         Filed: 06/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7695

        JOHN GRAY,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; MARYLAND ATTORNEY
        GENERAL,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01976-ELH)

        Submitted: November 30, 2022                                      Decided: June 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7695        Doc: 12           Filed: 06/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                  John Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions for a

        certificate of appealability and for reconsideration relating to his petition construed

        under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.        The orders are 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 Gray has not made

        the requisite showing.     Gray’s appeal is essentially duplicative of his appeal in Gray v.

        Warden of Jessup Corr. Inst., No. 21-4279, 2021 WL 4902350 (4th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021), in

        which we denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal of the district

        court’s order denying relief on Gray’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, while we grant Gray’s

        pending motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss his appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7695      Doc: 12        Filed: 06/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    3