Tremaine Wray v. Dennis Bush ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7686
    TREMAINE RASHON WRAY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN DENNIS BUSH,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
    Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:17-cv-03066-BHH)
    Submitted: December 1, 2020                                    Decided: February 25, 2021
    Before KEENAN, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tremaine Rashon Wray, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tremaine Rashon Wray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wray’s 
    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 Wray has not made
    the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Wray’s motions for 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7686

Filed Date: 2/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/25/2021