USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6271

TEVARIS CRAWFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MACK BAILEY, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center for the Virginia Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00527-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tevaris Crawford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Tevaris Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawford 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