DocketNumber: 20-6350
Filed Date: 8/25/2020
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/22/2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6350 DON NEWBY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00714-JAG-RCY) Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don Cornelius Newby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Don Newby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 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 Newby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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