Trevell Harvey v. Chadwick Dotson ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-6482      Doc: 10         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6482
    TREVELL ANTWON HARVEY, a/k/a Travell Antwon Harvey,
    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
    Richmond. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Magistrate Judge. (3:21-cv-00304-EWH)
    Submitted: September 29, 2023                               Decided: November 15, 2023
    Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-6482         Doc: 10       Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Trevell Antwon Harvey seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief
    on his amended 
    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 Harvey 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
    *
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6482

Filed Date: 11/15/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/16/2023