Gene Cooper, Jr. v. Warden, Tyger River Correctional Institution ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6107 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6107
GENE TONY COOPER, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, TYGER RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:23-cv-01170-DCN)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gene Tony Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6107 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Gene Tony Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cooper’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 Cooper 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
*
As to Cooper’s newly asserted ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we do not
“consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.”
Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
2