Court Opinion

ID: 4908282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-03 19:00:37.558787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:14.558960
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6452

GEORGE W. HUGUELY, V,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-30021-TTC-RSB)

Submitted: August 24, 2021                                   Decided: September 3, 2021

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Matthew Harris, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia; Jonathan
P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       George W. Huguely, V, 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, 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 Huguely 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