Antwann Miller v. Harold Clarke

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6447 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6447
ANTWANN MILLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00318-MSD-LRL)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwann Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6447 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Antwann Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Miller’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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74
(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 Miller has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motion for appointment of counsel,
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