USCA4 Appeal: 22-6535 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6535

EARL BRANTLEY INGRAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00540-HEH-EWH)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Brantley Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6535 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Earl Brantley Ingram, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 Ingram 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