Delvin Wilson v. Harold Clarke
Delvin Wilson v. Harold Clarke
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7270
DELVIN JAMES WILSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, D.O.C. Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Virginia. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00657-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Delvin James Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Delvin James Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition. 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 Wilson has not made
the requisite showing. Wilson fails to contest the district court’s procedural default finding,
and therefore has forfeited appellate review of his underlying § 2254 claims. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177(4th Cir. 2014). Further, the record
supports the district court’s determination that Wilson’s claims were procedurally
defaulted. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wilson’s motion
seeking leave to file a motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished