Court Opinion

ID: 9899543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:00:58.695995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.600784
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6482      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6482

        TREVELL ANTWON HARVEY, a/k/a Travell Antwon Harvey,

                            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
        Richmond. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Magistrate Judge. (3:21-cv-00304-EWH)

        Submitted: September 29, 2023                               Decided: November 15, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6482         Doc: 10       Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Trevell Antwon Harvey seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief

        on his amended 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 Harvey 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

               *
                The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28
        U.S.C. § 636(c).

                                                      2