Frederick Hazel v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6235 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6235
FREDERICK LAMONT HAZEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00706-DJN-MRC)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Lamont Hazel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6235 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Lamont Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 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 Hazel 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