Michael Garner v. Harold Clarke ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6575
    MICHAEL E. GARNER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00560-MFU-JCH)
    Submitted: February 14, 2022                                 Decided: February 24, 2022
    Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael E. Garner, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael E. Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    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, 
    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 Garner has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garner’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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6575

Filed Date: 2/24/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/24/2022