Court Opinion

ID: 9961898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:43.322792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.490803
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7168      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7168

        GREGORY LEON HAMMER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00003-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7168      Doc: 20          Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Gregory Leon Hammer, a Virginia prisoner, 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 Hammer has not

        made the requisite showing. Specifically, Hammer asserted (a) prosecutorial misconduct,

        predicated on the Commonwealth’s alleged interference with Hammer’s ability to

        interview Guy Venable, who Hammer maintained was a potentially exculpatory witness;

        and (b) that the trial court violated Hammer’s right to self-representation by denying him

        a continuance to interview Venable. In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district

        court correctly deferred to the Virginia Court of Appeals’ ruling that no prejudice resulted

        from the alleged restraint on Hammer’s ability to interview Venable because Venable’s

        testimony was irrelevant to the charges Hammer faced, and the record established that

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7168      Doc: 20          Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 3 of 3

        Hammer had contact with Venable before trial. As to the second claim, the court correctly

        ruled that the Virginia Court of Appeals’ rationale for (again) finding a lack of resulting

        prejudice was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law, in part

        because there simply was no prejudice flowing from Venable not testifying at trial and,

        regardless, Hammer’s argument pertaining to the denied continuance “construe[d] his

        Sixth Amendment rights too broadly.” (Order at 14).

               Next, the district court found that the claim seeking to invalidate Hammer’s waiver

        of his right to counsel was both unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because Hammer

        did not raise it on appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals, and that Hammer failed to

        overcome the resulting procedural bar. Upon review, we hold that this conclusion is not

        debatable. Finally, Hammer challenges the denial of his motions for discovery and an

        evidentiary hearing. We discern no abuse of discretion as to the former ruling and observe

        that Hammer did not renew his motion for an evidentiary hearing after the magistrate

        judge’s initial denial without prejudice.

               For these reasons, we deny Hammer’s motion for a certificate of appealability—as

        well as his motions for leave to obtain a subpoena duces tecum and for judicial notice—

        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

                                                     3