-
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6482 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6482 TREVELL ANTWON HARVEY, a/k/a Travell Antwon Harvey, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHADWICK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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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 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Precedential Status: Non-Precedential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