USCA4 Appeal: 22-6839 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6839

KENYATTA H. ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert John Krask, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00553-RJK)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenyatta Hasani Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6839 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Kenyatta Hasani Adams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and a subsequent order 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, 115-17 (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 Adams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Adams’ motion to supplement his informal brief. 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

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to § 28 U.S.C. 636(c).