Court Opinion

ID: 9896281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:01:13.980791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.899669
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6679      Doc: 6        Filed: 11/06/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6679

        RAZA H. SIKANDAR,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00523-DJN-MRC)

        Submitted: October 23, 2023                                  Decided: November 6, 2023

        Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raza H. Sikandar, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6679         Doc: 6      Filed: 11/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Raza H. Sikandar seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 Sikandar 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