Court Opinion

ID: 9947014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:12.920764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.350634
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6426      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6426

        LARRY S. WHITE, II,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        SHELBY SEARLS,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00523)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larry S. White, II, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE
        OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6426         Doc: 12       Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Larry S. White, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on White’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, 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 White 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 contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         DISMISSED

                                                      2