Court Opinion

ID: 9912617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:27.604039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:01:16.213646
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194      Doc: 11         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7194

        WILLIE TINSLEY SMITH,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00414-RGD-LRL)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Willie Tinsley Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194       Doc: 11         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Willie Tinsley Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

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

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal. We also deny Smith’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