Court Opinion

ID: 9391679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:30.426875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.830769
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7451      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7451

        WILLIAM JAMES MITCHELL,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
        OF MARYLAND,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-02063-DKC)

        Submitted: March 27, 2023                                            Decided: May 1, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William James Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7451         Doc: 13      Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William James Mitchell 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, 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 Mitchell has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s motion for a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Mitchell’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