Court Opinion

ID: 9375102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:10.724758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.919841
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6839      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6839

        KENYATTA H. ADAMS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00553-RJK)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenyatta Hasani Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6839        Doc: 14         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenyatta Hasani Adams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief

        on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. * The

        orders are 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 Adams has not made

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

        appeal. We grant Adams’ motion to supplement his informal brief. 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 proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to § 28 U.S.C.
        636(c).

                                                       2