Court Opinion

ID: 5175958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-04 20:00:46.8094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:18.837973
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7244

DUAN L. WILLIAMS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

H.W. CLARKE, Dir. Va. D.O.C.,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cv-00564-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: December 1, 2021                                       Decided: January 4, 2022

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Duan L. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Williams’ 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 Williams 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