Charles Tunstall v. Mary Locklear

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6295 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6295
CHARLES ALONZO TUNSTALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MARY LOCKLEAR,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-hc-02240-BO)
Submitted: August 10, 2022 Decided: August 17, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6295 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Alonzo Tunstall seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 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, as here,
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 Tunstall 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
2