Bryant Parker v. Director of the Virginia Dept. of Corrections

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7436

BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00807-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: February 16, 2023

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Matthew Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, 115-16 (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 Parker has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motions for 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