Eric Grueninger v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7242 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7242
ERIC GRUENINGER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00786-JAG-MRC)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Adam Grueninger, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7242 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Grueninger seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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, 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 Grueninger has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Grueninger’s “Motion for
Leave to Amend Habeas Petition,” which we construe as a motion to supplement his
informal brief, 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