Raheem Johnson v. Jeffrey Kiser ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7445 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7445
RAHEEM CHABEZZ JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY KISER, Warden, Red Onion State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00488-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: July 26, 2023 Decided: August 3, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Engle, DONOVAN & ENGLE, PLLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7445 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Raheem Chabezz Johnson 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, 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 Johnson 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