Willie Smith v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7194
WILLIE TINSLEY SMITH,
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
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00414-RGD-LRL)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 21, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Tinsley Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7194 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Tinsley Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. 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 Smith has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel. 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